MARY  STUART  IN  FICTION  AND  DRAMA 


BY 

MERLE  VINCENT  RAINES 

A.  B.  University  of  Illinois,  1921 


THESIS 

SUBMITTED  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILLMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS 
FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF  MASTER  OF  ARTS  IN  ENGLISH 
IN  THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  OF  THE 
UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS, 

1922 


URBANA,  ILLINOIS 


M3  

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 

THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL 

^ay  26 -192  2 

I HEREBY  RECOMMEND  THAT  THE  THESIS  PREPARED  UNDER  MY 
SUPERVISION  BY__  Merle  Vinceot  Rainer 
ENTITLED Mary  Stuart  in  Fiction  and  Dxamsu- 


BE  ACCEPTED  AS  FULFILLING  THIS  PART  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR 


THE  DEGREE  OF 


Recommendation  concurred  in* 


Committee 

on 

Final  Examination* 


•Required  for  doctor’s  degree  hut  not  for  master’s 


C*,  * A 

* x*  J 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2015 


https://archive.org/details/marystuartinfictOOrain 


TABLE  OP  COJIT  SOTS 


I.  Mary  Stuart  in  Literature  from  1567  to  1725 1 

II.  Mary  Stuart  in  Literature  from  1725  to  1820 50 

III.  M ary  Stuart  in  Nineteenth  Century  Literature  ....  52 

IV.  Mary  Stuart  in  Twentieth  Century  Literature 68 

Chronological  List  of  Drama  Concerning  Mary  Stuart  ....  82 

Chronological  List  of  Fiction  Concerning  Mary  Stuart  ...  85 

Eitliography 87 


I.  MARY  STUART  IK  LITERATURE  FROM  156?  TO  1725 
The  Popularit  y ^of  ry;  .St  u art,  ^in  ,Li t e r %t ' u re 

The  career  of  Mary  Stuart,  Queen  of  Scots,  her  flight 
to  Scotland  from  France,  the  young  widow  of  Francois  II,  her 
strife  with  the  Presbyt erian  lords  for  the  control  of  the  gov- 
ernment, her  marriage  with  Barnley,  and  after  his  murder,  with 
Bothwell,  her  escape  from  Murray  to  England,  her  twenty  years’ 
imprisonment  amid  Catholic  intrigues  for  her  release,  and  her 
execution  in  1587,  affords  a wealth  of  material  for  the  poet, 
the  dramatist,  and  the  novelist.  In  the  opposition  of  the 
strong  personalities  connected  with  it  - Mary  and  Elizabeth, 
the  craven  Barnley  and  the  brutal,  masterful  Bothwell,  the 
faithful  Melville  and  the  sinister  Bavison  - there  lie  ready 
for  the  author’s  hand  sharp  contrasts  and  tense,  dramatic  sit- 
uations. He  may  choose  from  the  mass  of  forged  letters,  state 
documents,  and  contemporary  judgments  those  items  which  support 
his  interpretation  of  Mary's  character  and  may  condemn  or  ex- 
culpate her  by  the  emphasis  which  he  gives  to  her  own  person- 
ality, the  political  situation  of  the  period,  or  the  struggle 
between  Anglicanism  and  Catholicism. 

Every  account  of  a sovereign’s  reign  must  consider 
the  individual  qualities  of  that  sovereign  in  their  reaction 
with  the  forces  that  determine  the  social  and  religious 
history  of  a nation,  but  in  the  case  of  Mary  Stuart  this  in- 
terrelation is  so  obscured  by  defamatory  letters  concerning 
her  and  so  ccncealed  by  the  diplomatic  correspondence  from 
English  and  continental  courts  that  it  is  difficult  to  deter- 





B 


I''  I v 


. 


2 


mine  her  guilt. 

Mary’s  claim  to  royal  power  was  never  accepted 
without  question,  either  in  England  or  Scotland.  She  had 
"been  educated  in  Prance  in  the  palace  of  her  uncle,  the 
Cardinal  of  Lorraine,  and  had  accepted  the  religious  faith 
and  the  political  ethics  of  the  House  of  Guise.  At  the  age 
of  fourteen  she  had  married  the  Dauphin,  later  Francois  II, 
and  had  ruled  France  as  queen  for  eighteen  months.  On  the 
death  of  her  husband  she  was  forced  to  flee  to  Scotland,  a 
victim  of  the  enmity  of  Catherine  de  Medici,  and  there  she 
established  her  court,  a gay,  pleasu re-loving  Catholic 
court,  in  a land  of  austere  Presbyterian  lords  and  rival 
Border- raiding  chieftains.  After  two  years  of  widowhood 
she  chose  as  husband  Henry  Stuart,  Lord  Darnley,  and  united 
the  Stuart  line  with  the  house  of  Lennox,  both  families 
with  claims  to  English  royalty. 

By  the  terms  of  Henry  VIII ’s  will  Mary  was  next 
in  succession  to  the  English  throne  after  the  family  of 
Grey,  although  she  had  by  right  of  birth  a stronger  claim 
to  sovereignty.  Elizabeth  had  no  greater  fondness  for  the 
Greys  than  the  Stuarts,  but  the  one  house  was  Anglican, 
the  other  Catholic.  Elizabeth  herself  was  without  any  deep 
religious  convictions,  even  inclining  toward  Catholicism 
when  she  desired  an  alliance  with  France  and  Spain,  but  she 
realized  the  danger  of  recognizing  a Catholic  heir  in  Eng- 
land - England  that  opposed  the  pope  with  Henry,  read  the 
prayerbook  with  Edward,  and  said  mass  with  Mary  Tudor.  Mary 


' 


. 


. 


* 


* 

, 


3 


Stuart  as  queen  would  unite  Scotland  and  England  and  ally 
England  with  her  ancient  enemies,  France,  Spain,  and  the 
papacy.  The  Tudor  constitutional  government  under  a power- 
ful Parliament  which  Henry  developed  to  aid  him  against  the 
pope  would  give  place  to  absolutist  government  under  a 
Stuart  • 

Mary’s  execution,  then,  in  1587  deprived  English 
Catholicism  of  a strong  claimant  for  the  throne,  rid  Eliz- 
abeth of  a powerful  rival  who  might  combine  continental 
nations  against  England,  and  was  a triumph  for  Protestant- 
ism that  balanced  the  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew’s  Eve 
and  rendered  useless  any  attempt  at  rescue  by  a Spanish 
Armada.  Though  Mary  had  never  been  an  ardent  Catholic,  dur- 
ing her  imprisonment  she  had  been  regarded  as  the  symbol  of 
world  Catholicism,  whose  fall  could  presage  the  ultimate 
victory  of  Anglicanism  or  a revival  of  enthusiasm  for  the 
papacy.  Numerous  pamphlets  appeared  as  soon  as  her  death 
became  known,  a literary  Armada  from  France  and  Spain  de- 
nouncing Elizabeth  as  a "feminine  Nero,  with  a cannibal’s 
thirst  for  blood."  The  personalities  of  the  queens,  except 
as  objects  for  scathing  arraignment  or  undiscriminating 
praise,  were  disregarded,  and  the  two  became  the  represent- 
atives of  the  Catholic  Reformation  and  the  English  Renaiss- 
ance. The  theme  was  taken  up  by  novels  and  dramas,  and 
gained  great  popularity  in  seventeenth-century  Germany  and 
ninet eenth-century  England.  Interest  soon  swung,  however, 
from  the  religious  and  political  issue  to  the  character  of 


■ 


* 


, 


, 


4 


the  queen  herself • 

A Survey  .of.  Studies  of  Jfer^ ,TSt u art  ^s _Li t e.ra rz jjls  t org 

There  has  been  only  one  attempt  to  link  together 
the  numerous  dramas  that  have  centered  around  Mary  Stuart  - 
"Maria  Stuart  im  Drama  der  Welt literatur " by  Karl  Kipka. 

The  author  attempts  to  consider  every  important  play  on 
the  subject,  comment  irg  both  on  its  literary  merit  and  its 
place  in  the  development  of  a.  Mary  Stuart  tradition  in  lit- 
erature. The  account  of  dramas  before  1300  is  very  full, 
Jesuit  and  folk-plays  of  southern  Germany  receiving  espec- 
ially careful  analysis.  There  is  little  discussion  of  works 
in  the  nineteenth  century,  Kipka  being  content  to  list  them 
in  chronological  order  without  indicating  their  content  and 
their  point  of  view  toward  Mary  Stuart.  Nor  can  he  always 
resist  the  temptation  to  laud  the  work  of  his  countrymen 
and  slight  that  of  other  nationalities,  particularly  the 
English.  He  succumbs  to  this  impulse  in  his  review  of 
Schiller,  where  he  would  show  that  the  finely  imaginative 
grasp  of  the  issues  of  character  in  the  tragedy  come  by  in- 
tuition to  the  Teuton  while  the  blunter,  less  sensitive 
Anglo-Saxon  reaches  the  same  conclusion  only  after  a long 
process  of  reasoning. 

The  present  study  has  been  planned  to  remedy  the 
defects  in  Kipka' s presentation,  and  especially  to  show,  as 
he  does  not,  the  relation  between  Mary’s  place  as  a heroine 
of  fiction  and  her  popularity  in  drama.  The  study,  further, 


5 


aims  to  compile  an  accurate,  complete  list  of  the  novels 
and  plays  dealing  with  her  life,  following  the  actual  chron- 
ology and  indicating  as  far  as  possible  the  content  of  each 
work  and  the  point  of  view  inspiring  it.  Its  primary  pur- 
pose, then,  is  to  trace  briefly  and  without  national  bias 
Mary  Stuart *s  course  through  fiction  and  drama,  showing  how 
men  at  different  periods  regarded  her  and  what  elements  in 
her  history  were  selected  for  treatment  by  opposing  schools 
of  literary  thought.  Because  the  work  has  been  intended  as 
a basis  for  later,  more  detailed  studies  of  the  problem, 
nothing  like  a comprehensive  review  of  individual  works  has 
been  attempted.  The  play  or  novel  has  been  placed  in  the 
general  literary  movement  to  which  its  characteristics  ally 
it,  and  merely  its  underlying  attitude  toward  Mary  Stuart 
has  been  emphasized.  There  has  been  little  place  for  con- 
siderations of  the  relation  between  different  pieces  and 
of  the  development  of  minor  characters. 

For  the  early  plays  concerning  Mary  the  author 
has  relied  on  Kipka,  roost  of  the  original  plays  not  being 
available,  but  the  impressions  given  there  have  been  ver- 
ified by  reference  to  the  studies  of  von  Pichler,  Michels, 
and  Stachel  of  Jesuit  drama,  early  German  Renaissance 
drama  of  the  Senecan  type,  and  southern  German  folk-drama. 
For  the  more  recent  novels  and  plays,  whenever  the  work  it- 
self was  not  consulted,  the  author  turned  to  literary  hist- 
ories, dictionaries  of  biography,  and  to  such  handbooks  of 


6 


the  stage  as  Genest,  Fleay,  and  "Biographies  Dramatica." 

Mary  Stuart  Viewed  \>y_  ^Catholic  .A-gologist  8 

Six  years  after  the  death  of  Mary,  when  the  forces 

of  each  church  were  being  marshalled  for  a spirited  defense 

of  its  position,  there  appeared  "Insulani  Stuarta  Tragoedia 

siue  Caedes  Mariae  Serenissirnae  Scot,  in  Angl.  perpetrata," 

by  Adrian  Roulers.  The  play’s  primary  purpose  is  religious 

propaganda,  its  author  being  professor  of  poetry  in  the 

Jesuit  school  at  Douai,  a center  of  the  Catholic  Reformation 

(l) 

in  Germany,  and  its  only  merit  is  its  animated  present- 
ation of  Mary  as  a martyr  queen.  It  is  a five-act  tragedy 
modelled  after  the  "Thyestes"  of  Seneca  and  is  adorned  with 
many  classical  devices,  a chorus  of  captive  youths  and 

(p) 

maidens  serving  as  commentators  on  the  action. 

Roulers  plunges  into  his  attack  on  Elizabeth  in 
the  prologue.  The  ghost  of  Henry  VIII  arises  from  the  hell 
to  which  the  papal  excommunication  has  condemned  him,  and 
confesses  Elizabeth  the  child  of  his  incestuous  union  with 
Anne  Bol eyn,  his  own  natural  daughter.  The  action  shows 
Mary  in  consultation  with  her  physician,  her  patient  en- 
durance of  Amias’  brutal  treatment,  her  composure  during 
the  trial,  and  her  leave-takings  before  her  execution. 

Dramatically  the  highest  point  is  reached  in  the 
last  scene,  as  Mary,  with  joy  at  her  approaching  martyrdom, 

1. -  Woerner,  Roman.  "Die  Alteste  Maria  Stuart-Tragtfdie. " 

In  "Germanistische  Abhandlung en . " Hermann  Paul,  Strassburg, 
1902. 

2. -  Stachel,  Paul.  "Seneca  und  das  Deutsche  Renaissance- 
drama.  " Meyer  and  Mtfller,  Boston,  1907,  p.  212. 


« 

. 


' 

7 


reviews  the  religious  strife  to  which  she  is  a sacrifice. 

The  chorus  implores  Heaven  to  send  a rescuer,  but  God  has 
ordained  her  death  that  it  may  win  new  converts  to  the 
faith.  The  scene  (closely  followed  by  Schiller)  presents 
the  queen’s  pathetic  farewell,  her  message  to  her  son  that 
she  died  a good  Scotchwoman,  a good  Frenchwoman,  and  a good 
Catholic,  and  her  magnanimous  forgiveness  of  the  judges 
and  the  executioner.  The  description  is  vivid  and  is  for 
the  most  part  marked  by  an  admirable  restraint.  Elizabeth 
is  portrayed  without  that  sense  of  personal  hatred  which 
actuates  later  dramatists,  and  Mary  is  a dignified  queenly 
figure.  The  first  four  acts  are  filled  with  exposition  of 
the  crisis  within  the  church,  but  the  last  act  is  simple 
and  moving.  Houlers  seems  awed  in  the  presence  of  death, 
and  he  introduces  into  the  sacredness  of  Mary’s  last  hour 
on  earth  no  religious  note  except  an  exultant  one  that  she 
died  for  her  faith. 

Similar  restraint  was  not  shown  in  the  Catholic 
dramas  that  kept  interest  in  Mary  Stuart  alive  in  Germany 
during  the  next  fifty  years.  Protestantism  had  made  such 
progress  in  the  public  mind  that  to  insure  the  continuance 
of  Catholic  principles  the  Jesuit  order  in  1585  and  again 
in  1599  sanctioned  the  production  of  dramas  that  combined 
classical  form  and  spirit  with  the  tenets  of  Jesuit  theology. 
Instructors  in  the  university  centers  of  the  order  res- 
ponded loyally  to  the  appeal.  Because  of  the  place  which 


8 


Mary  Stuart  had  occupied  in  world  Catholicism  during  her 
imprisonment  her  story  offered  excellent  opportunities 
for  such  a glorification  of  religious  faith.  As  a result 
of  Jesuit  activity  many  dramas  concerned  with  the  spec- 
tacle of  her  death  were  presented  in  Prague,  Neuberg,  Krems, 
and  the  villages  of  the  Tyrol  during  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury. ^ ^ 

The  plays  built  for  presentation  before  village 
audiences  were  clumsily  constructed,  with  little  literary 
merit  to  counteract  the  zealot’s  purpose  that  inspired 
them.  The  fact  that  the  author  has  profound  religious 
convictions  does  not  make  the  plays  perishable,  for  the 
mystical  rhapsody  that  comes  through  meditation  upon  the 
divine  has  produced  enduring  literature.  These  works, 
however,  were  too  frankly  argumentative  to  reach  that  high 
plane  of  poetic  feeling.  Their  material  was  that  aspect 
of  Mary  Stuart’s  life  which  would  inevitably  lose  interest 
after  religious  differences  were  adjusted.  Their  grasp 
of  the  issues  involved  in  her  execution  was  a superficial 
one,  for  they  selected  only  the  bold  contrasts  that  were 
theatrically  effective.  Their  delineation  of  character 
was  always  along  the  obvious  lines.  Mary  was  the  embod- 
iment of  virtue,  patience,  and  nobility,  while  Elizabeth 
was  an  inhuman  tyrant,  sensible  to  none  of  the  gentler 

1.-  ^ichels,  Victor.  "Studien  TTber  die  A'lteeten  Deutschen 
Pest nacht spiele . H K.  J.  TriJToner,  Strassburg,  1896. 


, 


. 


- 


. 


9 


feelings  of  her  sex  and  allied,  "by  implication  when  not  by 
actual  vows  of  fealty,  to  the  devil  and  his  legions  of  the 
excommuni  cat  e . 

The  plays  that  emanate  from  the  university  cen- 
ters were  more  creditable  dramatic  entertainment,  with 
greater  consistency  and  subtlety  in  motivation  and  con- 
ception of  character*  The  earliest  of  the  type  illus- 
trates in  its  ardor  and  its  grotesque  combination  of  human 
and  heavenly  figures  the  strength  and  weakness  of  the 
Jesuit  perf ormances.  At  the  University  of  Prague  there 
was  produced  in  1544  a "Ktfnigliche  Tragtfdie.  Oder  Maria 
Stuarda,  Ktfnigin  von  Schott  land  und  des  Ktfnigreichs  Eng el- 
ls Jid  Erbin,  welcha  Elisabetha,  regierende  Kifnigin  in  Eng- 
landt , ausz  Hasz  gegen  der  katholischen  Religion  und  Ehr- 
geiz  hat  enthaupten  las  sen.  Ward  gehalten  und  gespielt 
zur  Herbstzeit  von  der  ansehnlichen  an  der  K.  K.  Univer- 
sity der  Societ.  J.  zu  Prag  studierenden  Jugend  im  Jahr, 
nach  Christi  Geburt  im  1544,  den  29.  Sept."^) 

Mary  is  pictured  as  robbed  of  her  two  husbands 
by  judicial  murders,  forced  into  a hateful  marriage  with 
Bothwell,  and  ill-advised  in  her  flight  into  England.  The 
first  act  shows  her  entrance  into  Elizabeth’s  kingdom 
after  she  has  received  very  solemn  pledges  of  welcome* 

The  following  acts  show  her  at  crises  during  her  detention 
at  Fotheringay , comforted  by  the  Genius  of  Religion,  warned 

1.-  Kipka,  Karl.  "Maria  Stuart  im  Drama  der  Welt  lit eratur.  " 
Max  Hesse,  Leipzig,  1907,  p.  27* 


' 


- 


- 


' 


10 

against  Elizabeth’s  malice  by  the  Genius  of  the  House  of 
Stuart.  As  she  makes  preparations  for  death  Susanna,  fol- 
lowed by  a host  of  other  innocent  martyrs,  corn® to  proffer 
the  crown  of  martyrdom.  She  accepts  their  homage  with 
humility,  praising  the  goodness  of  God  in  permitting  her 
sacrifice,  and  walks  to  the  scaffold  in  a mood  of  intense 
devotion.  As  the  axe  falls  the  chorus  raises  a solemn 
chant,  which  changes  to  a song  of  victory.  The  Spirit  of 
Justice  predicts  the  triumph  of  righteousness,  and  the 
ghosts  of  Eranpois  and  Earnley  promise  to  requite  Eliz- 
abeth for  her  murder  of  their  beloved  wife. 

The  action  depends  on  the  intervention  of  heav- 
enly spirits,  guardians  over  the  good  and  the  believers. 
Man  is  conceived  as  essentially  evil,  redeemed  only  by 
a belief  in  a higher  power,  and  there  is  consequently  no 
character  who  can  represent  the  good.  Mary  has  received 
her  martyrdom  as  an  act  of  divine  grace  and  is  numbered 
with  the  angelic  host.  In  motivation,  as  in  character, 
the  author  is  content  with  the  abstract,  each  step  being 
the  triumph  of  one  principle  over  another.  Soon  the  sym- 
bolism grows  oppressive,  even  grotesque • The  last  scene 
especially  is  ridiculous,  as  angelic  Hosannas  to  Mary’s 
upward  mounting  spirit  mingle  with  earthly  lamentations 
of  her  maids.  The  prevailing  tone  of  the  play,  however, 
is  that  of  earnestness,  and  some  of  the  songs  have  a true 
lyric  uprueh  of  feeling. 

Impetus  was  given  to  these  Jesuit  glorifications 


. 


■ 

• 

■ 

. 


. 


, 


« 

, 


' 


’ 

- 

, 

» 


11 


of  Mary’s  death  by  the  Thirty  Years’  War,  with  the  attempt 
of  Catholic  princes  to  regain  the  land  seized  by  Protest- 
ants. Her  story  continued  to  be  told  during  the  middle  of 
the  seventeenth  century  not  so  much  because  of  public  in- 
terest in  her  fate  as  because  of  its  power  to  stir  the 
German  people  to  rebellion  against  Protestant  persecutions, 
the  terror  of  which  they  had  felt  during  the  Bohemian  up- 
risings.^^ The  Scottish  queen  became  throughout  southern 
Germany  and  Austria  a symbol  of  resolute  adherence  to  faith* 


1. -  An  additional  incentive  to  write  concerning  Mary  Stuart 
came  with  the  declining  power  of  her  family  in  England  and 
the  rise  of  the  austere  Puritan  exemplified  by  Cromwell. 
Continental  poets  saw  the  danger  to  them  that  lay  in  the  es- 
tablishment of  Puritan  principles,  and  they  included  denun- 
ciations of  the  Commonwealth  in  their  discussion  of  the 
Stuart  fortunes.  A play  with  this  purpose  is  the  ’’Maria 
Stuart  of  Gemartelde  Majesteit,”  written  in  1645  by  Joost 
von  Vondel.  Sombre  and  fatalistic  in  mode  of  expression, 

it  is  similar  to  the  many  Butch  plays  of  the  period  that 
protest  against  tyranny.  In  its  account  of  Mary’ s last 
days  it  contains  a bitter  assault  on  Puritanism.  Mary  is 
referred  to  as  one  "die  zwiechen  tugendhaft  und  stfndig  den 
Mitt enehrenweg  hd!lt  ; die  irgend  eine  Schuld  oder  einen 
Fehler  hat  oder  durch  heftige  Leidenschaft  oder  durch  Un- 
verstand  zu  irgend  etw&s  Schrecklichen  geftfhrt  wird;  des- 
halb  eben  um  diesem  Mangel  abzuhelfen,  haben  wir  der  Stuart 
Unschuld  und  die  Gerechigkeit  ihrer  Sache  mit  dem  Hebei  der 
tfblen  Nachrede  under  der  Verleumdung  und  Btfsheit  jener 
Zeit  verhtfllt,  demit  ihre  christlichen  und  ktfniglichen 
Tugenden  durch  zeitweilige  Verdunkelung  nur  deetoheller 
hervor  leuchten.”  Hellwald  (Hellwald,  Frederich  von,  "Ge- 
schichte  de3  Holl#ndischen  Theaters,”  'Rotterdam,  1874,  p. 

40)  describes  the  play  as  five-act  tragedy  without  scene 
divisions  and  conforming  rigidly  to  the  unities.  In  a pro- 
phetic speech  one  of  the  attendants  sees  evil  threatening 
England  and  delivers  a polemic  against  Puritanism. 

2. -  von  Pichler,  F.  ”Uber  das  Brama  des  Mitt elalt ere  in 
Tirol.”  Innsbruck,  1820,  p.  76. 


. 


♦ • 


. 


12 


An  Early  Analysis  of  Mary’s  Personality 
As  the  Jesuit  dramas  developed,  the  political 
situation  during  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century  shared, 
in  writers’  minds,  the  importance  of  the  religious  struggle. 
The  Catholic  dramatist  could  present  only  the  events  of 
Mary’s  last  years,  since  the  early  years  showed  her  neither 
profoundly  devout  nor  proceeding  in  her  marriages  as  a 
queen,  a,  noble  woman  and  a martyr.  To  impart  any  originality 
to  his  narrative  he  must  emphasize  the  personal  character  of 
the  heroine  or  he  must  give  a new  interpretation  of  histor- 
ical events  and  personages  in  their  relation  to  her  death. 

Of  the  two  courses  he  chose  the  latter  as  involving  the 
least  difficulty. 


1.-  "La  Reyna  Maria  Estuarda"  by  Juan  Fautista  Diamante 
(1850)  is  imitative  of  the  style  of  Calderon.  It  gives 
itself  to  the  love  intrigues  of  Elizabeth  and  Leicester, 
Mary  and  Norfolk,  with  counterpart  humble  characters  for 
comic  relief.  The  only  new  motif  is  the  inner  conflict 
of  Norfolk  between  love  and  feudal  loyalty,  and  the 
struggle  between  duty  and  faith  in  his  acceptance  of  Cath- 
olicism. Mary  is  portrayed  sympathetically  as  a martyr 
to  her  religion,  but  the  strong  element  of  fatalism 
lessens  the  poignancy  of  the  final  tragedy.  Diamante  is 
intent  on  producing  a play  with  stirring  incident,  lively 
dialogue,  and  romantic  appeal. 

"La  Maria  Stuarda " (l562>)  by  Giovan  Francesco  Savaro 
follows  Diamante  in  its  dual  intrigues  of  aristocratic 
and  humble  characters  and  in  its  treatment  of  Mary  as  a 
passive  agent  in  the  plot  • 

"Marie  Stuart,  Reyne  d’Escosse"  (1675)  "Nouvelle 
historique,"  by  Pierre  Pesant  de  Eoi sguilbert , is  the  first 
work  of  fiction  dealing  with  Mary  Stuart’s  history.  It 
was  translated  into  English  by  James  Freebairn  under  the 
title  "Life  of  Mary  Queen  of  Scots"  (Edinburgh,  1725). 


* 

15 


The  first  dramatist  to  choose  the  first  course 
and  attempt  a searching  analysis  of  Mar y*s  character, 
religion  and  politics  being  considered  only  as  environ- 
mental forces,  was  Johannes  Riemer,  whose  "Von  hohen  Ver- 
m^hlungen"  appeared  at  Weissenfels  in  1679.  It  is  the 
first  play  to  treat  Mary’s  early  years  in  Scotland  and  is 
thus  important  in  determining  the  general  outline  of  suc- 
ceeding studies  of  the  period.  P-iemer  anticipates  later 
dramatists  in  conceiving  a drama  of  human  passions,  upon 
which  depends  the  fall  or  rise  of  a noble  Scottish  house, 
the  Stuart 8.  "Man  und  Weib  ist  ein  Leib,  M he  says,  "und 
wann  deren  eins  wieder-sinnet , so  reist  das  Band,  welches 
das  gantze  Hause  urafaeeet.,, 

Darnley’s  craven  spirit  and  hie  inordinate  greed 
for  power  estrange  Maria,  who  has  hoped  that  greet  good 
to  Scotland  will  follow  her  mating,  deeply  wounded  by  his 
suspicions,  she  yet  remains  a true  wife  and  wise  queen, 
dependingly  increasingly,  however,  on  Rit  z (Riccio).  After 
his  murder  she  turns  to  Eothwell  in  a moment  of  weakness, 
the!  fire  in  her  finding  in  him  an  answering  flame,  a phy- 
sical attraction,  a brutality,  and  a force  lacking  in  her 
husband.  Her  new  lover  to  be  sure  is  not  of  heroic  mold; 
his  animal  instincts  dominate  him;  his  passionate  desire 
to  possess  Maria  leads  him  to  murder  and  disgrace;  yet  he 
has  one  quality  that  Darnley  has  not  - virility.  The  queen 
forgets  all  restraints  in  the  ardor  of  Eothwell’ s wooing, 
and  consents  gladly  to  the  murder  of  her  husband. 


- • 


. 


- . 


' 


. 


. 


- 

14 


The  third  act  is  written  with  a skill  in  dram- 
atic composition  and  a keenness  of  insight  into  the  psych- 
ology of  the  characters  that  the  story  did  not  receive 
until  Swinburne’s  ,iBothwellw  two  centuries  later.  The 
English  ambassadors  assure  Bothwell  that  he  will  find 
favor  with  Elizabeth  ae  King  of  Scotland  and  pledge  him 
their  aid  in  getting  rid  of  Darnley.  Poison  fails,  and 
Barnley  it  lured  to  the  orchard  and  stabbed.  Bothwell  re- 
turns to  kiaria,  and  the  ambassadors  find  her  in  his  arms. 

"Von  hohen  Verm^hlungen"  stands  structurally  as 
an  organic  unit  with  a close-knit  tragic  action.  The  list 
of  characters  is  small,  one-half  the  length  of  that  of 
Houlers  or  of  the  Prague  dramatists,  but  each  has  a dec- 
isive part  to  play  in  the  action.  The  events  of  a year 
are  compressed  into  the  space  of  several  days,  but  the 
exclusion  of  religious  and  political  considerations  permits 
the  focusing  of  the  drama  upon  the  degeneration  of  l£aria’s 
character.  Careful  attention  is  given  to  details  - the 
dispatches,  misdirected  letters,  am  love  tokens  that  be- 
come familiar  property  of  dramatists  and  novelists  - and 
these  details,  combined  with  vigorous  dialogue  and  clear 
character  delineation,  give  a strong  impression  of  reality. 
It  is  significant  that  Riemer  does  not  sympathize  with 
his  heroine.  She  speaks,  not  for  her  faith,  but  for  her 
own  passionate  nature,  which  leads  her  inevitably  to  de- 
struction. 


15 


"Von  hohen  Verm^hlungen, M however,  was  little  known 
outside  V/eiseenf els , and  it  made  no  direct  impression  upon 
the  Mary  Stuart  story  in  the  eighteenth  century.  Swinburne 
then  revived  interest  in  it  by  his  trilogy.  It  must  stand 
side  by  side  with  Schiller's  "Maris  Stuart"  as  the  finest 
products  of  German  thinking  on  the  problem  of  Mary  Stuart. 

Marv  Stuart  in  French  Drama  of  Intrip-ue 

Luring  this  period  of  popularity  of  the  story 
in  Germany  little  attention  was  given  it  by  writers  at  the 
French  court,  who  probably  were  not  anxious  to  remind  Cath- 
erine de  Medici  of  her  hated  daughter-in-law.  Lesser  poets 
did  not  feel  this  necessity  for  restraint,  and  many  poems 
concerning  Mary  Stuart  appeared.  M^st  of  them  were  con- 
cerned with  Buchanan' s charges  against  the  queen  or  with 
the  religious  issue.  French  Catholicism  never  felt  the 
need  of  justifying  itself  to  the  public  that  German  Cath- 
olicism did,  and  the  point  of  view  that  appears  in  "Marie 
Stuart  Rgyne  d'Escosse"  (1539)  is  the  contribution  made  by 
French  authors  to  this  literary  tradition.  It  is  the  at- 
titude of  the  man  of  letters  who  utilizes  historical  facts 
as  a background  for  a work  of  his  own  imagination,  who  cares 
less  for  historical  accuracy  than  for  the  color,  the  romance, 
the  pomp  and  pageantry,  of  an  earlier  age.  This  pseudo- 
historic,  romantic  point  of  view  informs  more  than  half  of 
the  seventy-five  or  more  novels  and  dramas  in  which  Mary 
Stuart  is  a figure,  reaching  its  lowest  level  in  the  super- 
ficial, gaudily  wrought  novels  of  1630  to  1680- 


IS 

"Marie  Stuart  Reyne  d*Escosse,  M the  first  dram 
with  this  attitude,  is  the  work  of  Regnault , a,  dramatist 
attached  to  the  group  of  players  supported  by  Cardinal  Rich- 
elieu and  presenting  private  performances  in  his  palace. 

It  is  primarily  intended  for  a court  circle,  and  especially 
for  one,  like  those  at  Paris  and  Madrid,  where  the  act  of 
Elizabeth  in  riddir^  herself  of  a dangerous  rival  was 
thought  justifiable,  highly  moral  statecraft.  It  is  for 
a circle,  further,  where  religion  is  indifferently  regarded 
except  when  political  factors  are  involved.  Elizabeth  is 
consequently  not  the  incarnation  of  fanatic  malice  that  the 
Jesuit  drams  make  her,  but  a woman  who  can  be  as  gracious 
to  the  favored  duke  Norfolk  as  she  can  be  merciless  to  Mary. 
She  comes  near  to  pardoning  the  duke,  who  trustfully  con- 
fides his  hopes  of  marrying  her  cousin,  but  she  realizes 
the  danger  of  leniency  and  sends  him  to  the  block.  Mary  can 
here  reflect  no  glory  of  martyrdom;  her  first  appeal  is 
for  sympathy  as  a gentle  woman,  unfortunate  in  her  love* 

Regnault*  8 interest  is  twofold,  however,  and  the 
play  divides  as  the  second  interest  becomes  dominant.  The 
first  acts  present  the  duke  of  Norfolk  - an  attractive  noble 
courtier  without  skill  in  diplomatic  deception  - and  tell 
the  stoiy  of  hie  love  for  Mary.  In  thie  part  Elizabeth  ap- 
pears as  the  beneficent  sovereign,  deceived  by  evil  coun- 
sellors, and  Mary  is  the  unhappy  captive,  bitterly  maligned 
and  patiently  enduring  an  unjust  imprisonment.  After  the 
execution  of  Norfolk  another  dramatic  conflict  is  presented, 


- 


. 


- 


. 


• 

- 


1? 


and  the  problem  is  now  the  political  justification  of  Mary’s 
death.  There  is  a reversal  of  sympathy  to  Elizabeth,  and 
her  rival  becomes  a.  heartless  intrigant.  The  incoherence 
resulting  from  a dual  purpose  in  plot  and  characterization 
is  increased  by  the  compression  of  the  events  of  twenty 
years  into  the  compass  of  two  days.'1^ 

Limitations  on  Dramatic  Freedom  in  Elizabethan  England 

^either  Germany  nor  France,  however,  but  England, 


might  be  expected  to  be  the  first  to  tell  the  stoiy  of  Mary 
Stuart.  Yet  Elizabeth  had  proceeded  cautiously  in  the 
trial  and  execution  of  her  royal  captive,  since  openly  to 
insult  her  would  be  to  discredit  her  own  name  in  Europe 
and  effect  the  dreaded  alliance  between  Prance  and  Spain. 
Though  she  might  have  enjoyed  an  attack  upon  her  rival, 


1.-  Regnault’s  attitude  toward  history  is  continued  by 
Marie  Madeleine  Pioche,  Comtesse  de  Lafayette,  in  'The 
Princess  of  Clevee, " wherein  Mary  appears  as  a secondary 
character.  The  story  is  that  of  the  love  of  M.  de  Nemours 
for  the  beautiful  Madame  de  Clevee,  who  dislikes  her  hus- 
band but  cannot  neglect  the  claims  of  marital  honor  to 
entertain  an  intrigue.  Reticence,  grace,  and  delicacy 
attend  the  unfolding  of  the  simple  narrative,  which  is  set 
against  the  background  of  the  court  of  Henri  II.  Maiy 
Stuart  as  the  wife  of  the  dauphin  is  a charming,  young 
princess,  eager  to  acqui re  perfection  in  music  and  poetry, 
and  gently  curious  about  the  love  affairs  of  her  attend- 
ants. There  is  no  mention  of  the  relation  between  Fran- 
cois and  the  Queen-Dauphin  although  their  union  seems 
to  be  a happy  one.  The  duel  in  which  Henri  II  lost  his 
life  is  described,  and  there  is  a long  account  of  the  cor- 
onation of  the  young  king  and  queen  at  Rheirns.  Chastelart 
appears  as  one  of  the  poets  in  Mary’s  train. 

The  novel  takes  its  place  in  literary  history,  not  be- 
cause of  its  treatment  of  Mary  Queen  of  Scots,  but  because 
of  the  advance  it  makes,  after  the  romances  of  Scude'ry  and  La 
Calprenbde,  toward  a probable  love  story  stimply  and  in- 
timately told.  Its  place  in  Mary  Stuart  tradition  depends 
on  its  use  of  court  life  for  its  picturesqueness,  and  its 
depiction  of  a youthful,  happy  queen. 


, 


18 


she  could  not  allow  the  public  liberty  to  discuss  openly 
matters  of  state.  In  1569,  therefore,  she  had  ordered  her 
officers  to  refuse  licenses  to  plays  ”wherein  either  matters 
of  religion  or  of  the  governaunee  of  the  estate  of  the  com- 
mon weale  shalbe  handled  or  treated,  beyng  no  meets  matters 
to  be  wrytten  or  treated  upon,  but  by  menne  of  aucthorite, 
learning  and  wisedome,  nor  to  be  handled  before  any  audience 
but  of  grave  and  discrete  persons.  ^ 

The  rule  was  laxly  enforced,  although  the  council 
under  Leicester  intervened  to  punish  peculiarly  flagrant 
impropriety  in  discussion  of  political  affaire. 

A dramatist  might  of  course  evade  the  regulations, 


( 2 ) 

as  was  often  the  case,  by  disguising  the  characters  of 
his  play  and  transferring  the  events  to  an  earlier  century. 
This  device  is  followed  in  the  first  play  to  deal,  even 
indirectly,  with  Mary’s  reign  in  Scotland.  "A  Hewe  Inter- 
lude of  Vice  Conteyninge  the  History  of  Horestes  with  the 
cruel  Revengement  of  his  Fathers  death  upon  his  one  naturill 

Mother,”  by  John  Pikeryng,  was  played  at  the  court  of  Eliz- 

(4) 

abeth  between  July  14,  155?  and  March  5,  1558.  It  points 


1.-  Hazlitt,  William  Carew.  'The  English  Drama  and  Stage, 
under  the  Tudor  and  Stuart  Princes,  1545-1554.  Illustrated 
by  a Series  of  Documents,  Treatises,  and  Poems.”  Roxburghe 
Library,  London,  1859,  pp.  192. 

£.-  Gildersleeve,  Virginia  Crocheron.  overnment  Regul- 
ation of  the  Elizabethan  Drama.”  Columbia  University  Press, 
Hew  York,  1908,  p.  15. 

5.-  Simpson,  ”The  Political  Use  of  the  Stage  in  Shakespeare’s 
Time,”  Hew  Shakespeare  Society's  Transactions,  1874,  p.  5?1. 
4.-  Hazlitt,  William  Carew.  "A  Hand-Book  to  the  Popular  Poet- 
ical and  Dramatic  Literature  of  Great  Britain.”  London,  1857. 


19 


the  parallel  between  Mary  and  Clytemnestra  in  wedding  the 
murderers  of  their  husbands.  It  urges  that  the  recent  crime 
in  Scotland  be  avenged: 

"Therefore,  0 King,  if  that  her  faute  should  unrevengyd  be 
A thousand  evylles  would  insu  their  of,  Your  Grace  should  se 
Her  faute  is  great,  and  punnyshment  it  is  worthy  for  to  have 
Tor  by  that  meane  the  good,  in  sooth,  from  daungere  may  be 
saufe.  M 

This  sentiment  must  have  been  particularly  pies  sing  to  Eliz- 
abeth, who  was  only  waiting  for  a pretext  to  justify  her 
alliance  with  Murray. 

Except  for  the  substitution  of  native  morality 
figures,  Vice,  Nature,  and  Bewtey,  the  interlude  follows 

(i) 

closely  the  classical  tragedy  from  which  it  takes  its  name. 

It  closes  with  a eulogy  of  Elizabeth  delivered  by  Bewtey, 
who  claims  for  her  the  high  privilege  of  setting  up  virtue 
and  correcting  vice. 

Pikeryng’s  appeal  to  the  queen  to  restore  peace 
in  Scotland  makes  it  evident  that  the  pretense  of  Greek  char- 
acters is  not  seriously  regarded.  Critics  have  not  such 
clear  proof  when  they  see  in  "Hamlet " an  attack  on  Mary  sim- 
ilar to  that  in  Pikeryng’s  interlude,  but  introducing  more 

daringly  than  its  predecessor  references  to  contemporaty 

(2) 

Scottish  history.  A number  of  parallel  passages  and  iden- 


1. -  Eleay,  Frederick  Gard.  "A  Chronicle  History  of  the  Lon- 
don Stage  1559-1642."  Reeves  and  Turner,  London,  1890,  p.  61. 

2. -  Plumptre,  James  B.  B.  "Observations  on  Hamlet,  and  on 
the  motives  which  most  probably  induced  Shakespeare  to  fix 
upon  the  story  of  Amleth  from  the  Banish  Chronicle  of  Saxo 
Grammaticus  for  the  plot  of  that  tragedy;  being  an  attempt 
to  prove  that  he  designed  it  as  an  indirect  censure  of  Mary 


20 


tical  situations  are  presented  to  prove  this  theory, 
but  they  are  not  sufficiently  variants  of  the  story  that 
is  outlined  in  Saxo  Grammaticus  to  justify  one  in  contend- 
ing, as  does  Plumptre,  that  "Hamlet"  is  a veiled  attack 
on  Mary  Queen  of  Scots.  Shakespeare  may  have  been  influenced 
in  the  choice  of  details  by  affaire  in  Scotland,  but  “Ham- 
let “ is  certainly  more  than  a pleasant  political  document 
dedicated  to  the  English  queen. 

The  ban  which  prevented  the  great  Elizabethans 
from  deciding  openly  Mary’s  guilt  or  innocence  was  effective 
in  the  reign  of  her  successor,  who  issued  an  order  “against 
any  representing  any  Modern  Christian  King  in  plays  on  the 


Queen  of  Scots.”  Cambridge,  1796.  A brief  statement  of 
the  theory  is  given  in  the  appendix  to  volume  2 of  Furness, 
"A  New  Variorum  Edition  of  Shakespeare.” 

1.-  Claudius,  for  example,  becomes  king  through  his  mar- 
riage with  "the  imperial  jointress  of  this  warlike  state” 
(I,  2),  and  Bothwell  likewise  takes  the  crown  matrimonial 
as  Mary’s  jointure.  Barnley  and  the  elder  Hamlet,  both 
graceful,  handsome  men,  are  succeeded  by  men  of  unsavory 
reputation,  Bothwell  bearing  throughout  England  and  Scot- 
land the  name  of  ruffian,  drunkard,  and  rake,  and  Claudius 
passing  under  similar  odium.  Three  months  elapse  between 
the  death  of  Barnley  and  the  queen’s  marriage  with  Both- 
well; and  in  "Hamlet”  the  son’s  grief  is  aroused  at  the 
marriage  of  Gertrude  with  her  husband  not  two  months  dead” 
(I,  2).  Both  kings  are  "sleeping. ..  .of  life,  of  crown,  of 
queen  at  once  dispatch’d:  . . . .unhousel’ d,  disappointed, 

unaneled, ” (I,  5),  and  the  two  counsellors,  Biccio  and  Pol- 
onius  are  killed  in  the  presence  of  their  royal  mistresses. 
Hamlet’s  words  (III,  4)  on  the  death  of  Polonius  are  al- 
most exactly  those  spoken  in  Holyrood  at  the  murder  of 
Riccio  (Proude,  "History  of  England  From  the  Fall  of  Wol- 
sey  to  the  Beath  of  Elizabeth,”  vol.  9,  p.  254. 


. 


* 


21 


the  stage.  James  was  not  likely  to  encourage  public 

discussion  of  divinely  appointed  royalty,  or  to  welcome 
a play  either  reproving  by  implication  his  unfilial  con- 
duct or  attacking  Elizabeth.  In  consequence  Mary  Stuart 
does  not  appear  in  English  dramatic  literature  before  the 
closing  of  the  theatres  in  1640. 

Popularity  of  the  St  qex, .Aft er  t.he^Rest oration 

But  English  dramatists  were  too  fond  of  dealing 
with  national  history  to  neglect  for  long  the  theatrical 
values  in  a situation  that  made  England  and  her  royal  captive 
the  center  of  continental  conspiracies  for  twenty  years.  With 
the  return  of  the  emigrant  king  in  1660  and  the  opening 
of  the  theatres,  they  were  able  to  utilize  for  the  first 
time  the  possibilities  as  a tragic  heroine  which  surrounded 
Mary  Stuart.  At  this  time  of  ebb  in  English  Catholicism  a 
controversial  drama  in  the  style  of  Roulers  and  the  Jesuits 
was  not  possible,  and  the  development  of  Parliamentary  power 
made  unnecessary  any  contrast  between  Tudor  constitutional 
government  and  Stuart  absolutism.  The  religious  and  political 
aspects  of  the  material  being  thus  closed  to  them,  dramatists 
selected  the  human  elements,  the  personalities  of  the  queens 
in  their  influence  on  history.  Interest  was  focused  on  the 
love  of  Norfolk  and  Mary  instead  of  being  centered  on  her 
death,  and  following  French  rather  than  German  models,  the 

1.-  Ward,  Adolphus  William.  "A  Histoiy  of  English  Dramatic 
Literature  to  the  Death  of  Qyeen  Anne.  M Macmillan,  London, 
1799,  vol . 3,  p.  23. 


. 


22 


queen  was  pictured  as  a gentle,  noli le- spirited  woman  sac- 
rificing her  life  not  for  religion  but  for  love.  Norfolk 
was  represented  as  a resolute  manly  figure,  sensible  to  the 
claims  of  love  and  honor, and  in  accordance  with  the  ethics 
of  the  heroic  play  exa.lt ing  the  dictates  of  honor.  Eliz- 
abeth is  viewed  magnanimously  as  a woman  of  generous  heart 
and  fine  character  who  permitted  Mary’s  execution  only  to 
vindicate  her  own  honor  as  a queen.  Like  the  MMarie  Stuart 
Reyne  d’Escosse"  of  Regnault , these  plays  are  intended  to 
arouse  sympathy  and  admiration,  rather  than  pity,  as  did 
the  intensely  earnest  Jesuit  dramas,  or  fear  at  inexorable 
retribution  for  sin,  as  did  Johannes  Riemer’s  "Von  hohen 
VermiJhlungen.  " 

Fourteen  years  after  the  laws  against  the  theatres 
were  repealed  (1674)  John  Banks  wrote  "The  Albion  Queens," 
a five-act  play  in  the  heroic  couplet.  The  licenser  re- 
fused to  permit  a performance  of  it,  and  it  was  not  produced 
or  published  until  1704. Genest  speaks  of  the  difficult- 
ies attendant  to  its  production:  "Norfolk  says:  Kings  are 

like  divinities  on  earth  - but  even  this  sentiment  could 
not  save  this  Tragedy  from  being  Prohibit ed. .. .by  the  caprice 
of  the  Li  censer . . . . f or  what  reason.... is  not  easy  to  con- 
jecture."^ The  licenser  offered  no  objection  to  Banks’ 
other  historical  plays:  "The  Innocent  Usurper"  (1685) 

dealing  with  the  rivalry  between  Elizabeth  and  Lady  Jane 

1. -  Net  tie  t on,  George  Henry.  "English  Drama  of  the  Restoration 
and  Eighteenth  Century.”  Macmillan,  New  York,  1914. 

2. -  Genest,  "Some  Account  of  the  English  Stage,"  vol.  1,  p.423. 


' 


- 


25 


Grey,  and  •'Virtue  Betrayed,"  (1392),  presenting  the  fate 
of  Anne  Boleyn. 

Elizabeth  in  "The  Albion  Queens”  is  anxious  to 
grant  justice  and  royal  honors  to  her  cousin,  but  she  can- 
not receive  her  until  the  dishonor  attached  to  Mary’s 
name  has  been  removed.  The  duke  of  Norfolk  brings  her  a 
letter  from  Mary,  however,  telling  of  the  captive’s  great 
affection  for  her  and  describing,  despite  Murray’s  pro- 
tests, the  squalor  and  desolation  of  Bother ingay.  Moved 
to  pity  by  his  account  the  tender-hearted  Elizabeth  sends 
her  own  coach  to  bring  Mary  to  London. 

The  sincerity  of  the  magnanimous  queen  is  tested 
when  the  populace  salute  with  cries  of  joy  Mary’s  passage 
through  the  streets.  Jealousy  momentarily  overcomes  her 
feelings  of  mercy  and  she  declines  to  receive  her  prisoner. 
The  poor*  trembling  fugitive,  believing  herself  mocked  by 
the  cheers  and  too  broken  in  spirit  to  resent  them,  accepts 
this  blow  with  patient  resignation.  She  offers  to  break  her 
troth  with  Norfolk,  knowing  now  that  she  can  never  regain 
the  throne.  When  the  duke  is  imprisoned  she  renews  her  prom- 
ise and  is  ready  to  die  with  him. 

In  spite  of  the  efforts  of  Davison  (Cecil’s  sec- 
retary) to  prevent  it,  a meeting  is  effected  between  the 
two  queens.  They  are  reconciled  and  Elizabeth  proclaims 

"Behold  Your  Queens,  both  Scot  and  English  here, 

Here,  thou  wide  Ocean,  hear  thy  Albion  Queens. 

Let  my  dread  Voice  far  as  thy  waves  be  heard, 

From  Silver  Thames  to  Golden  Tweed  proclaim 
With  Harmony  of  Drums,  and  Trumpets  Sound, 

Sound  Mary  and  Elizabeth  your  Queens.”  (ill,  l) 


.. 


■ 


- 


» ' , 


24 


Emboldened  by  this  proclamation  Norfolk  confides  his  love  to 
the  English  queen.  She  orders  his  arrest,  yet  she  cannot 
deal  harshly  with  him: 

"Eiery  and  cool,  and  melting  in  a Breath, 

At  one  she  sighs,  and  pities  the  fall'n  Man 

And  at  the  same  moment  rages,  and  upbraids  him. M (IV, l) 

Cecil  and  Davison  acquaint  her  of  the  Babingto  n 
plot,  of  which  Gifford,  one  of  the  conspirators,  has  confessed 
Mary  the  instigator.  In  a moment  of  passion,  indignant  that 
her  hospitality  should  be  abueed  and  her  charitable  intentions 
ridiculed,  Elizabeth  orders  the  trial  of  Mary  and  the  exec- 
ution of  Norfolk. 

The  final  tragedy  is  not  inevitable,  since  it  may 
be  averted  at  several  points  in  the  narrative,  and  hence  the 
element  of  suspense  is  not  lacking.  There  are  many  irregul- 
arities of  composition,  the  verse  being  so  unmet rical  that 
one  critic  calls  it  "not  poetry,  but  prose  run  mad,”  ^ but 
the  success  of  the  play  on  the  stage  testified  to  its  power 
to  arouse  the  pity  of  the  audience  for  the  three  principal 

(2) 

characters. 

Banks  has  followed  Regnault  in  making  Mary  and  Eliz- 
abeth dramatically  of  equal  interest,  Mary  the  tragic  victim 
of  her  implacable  enemies,  and  Elizabeth  the  tragic  victim 
of  her  advisers.  It  is  difficult  to  gain  sympathy  for  both 
women,  but  Banks  has  succeeded  in  the  attempt.  Elizabeth  is 

1. -  Langbaine,  Gerard.  ”An  Account  of  the  English  Dramatick 
Poets.”  Oxford,  1691,  p.  7. 

2. -  ”..it  is  impossible  to  avoid  being  deeply  affected  at  the 
representation,  and  even  at  the  reading  of  his  tragic  pieces 
....he  seems  to  have  made  it  his  rule  to  keep  the  scene  per- 


[(%■*  *,  v**’ V.  -'I 


25 


jealous,  hasty  of  temper,  and  irresolute  of  will;  she  can  yet 
he  gentle,  merciful,  and  self-sacrificing.  Mary  is  a dreamy, 
melancholy  woman  who  fears  to  take  love  when  it  comes  to  her. 
She  will  not  yield  to  Norfolk’s  wooing  as  long  as  the  union 
is  dangerous  to  him.  'When  he  is  imprisoned  and  there  is  lit- 
tle chance  of  his  escaping  death,  she  is  proud  to  acknowledge 
her  love. 


The  performance  of  "The  Albion  Queens"  and  the 
disputes  arising  from  its  licensing  revived  English  interest 
in  the  fortunes  of  Mary  Queen  of  Scots,  an  interest  that  pro- 
duced in  1725  Mrs.  Eliza  Haywood’s  "Mary  Stuart,  Queen  of 
Scots:  Being  the  Secret  History  of  her  Life,  and  the  Real 

Causes  of  all  her  Misfortunes  Containing  a Relation  of  many 
Particular  Transactions  in  her  Reign;  never  yet  Published 
in  any  Collection."  With  this  work  Mrs.  Haywood  began  that 
series  of  scandal  novels^ ^ which  won  her  a place  in  Pope’s 
"Duhciad"  and  his  arraignment  of  her  as  one  of  "those  shame- 


less scribblers. .. .who,  in  libellous  memoirs  and  novels, 


petually  alive,  and  never  suffer  his  characters  to  droop. 

The  ’Island  Queens’  well  preserved  that  power  of  affecting 
the  passions  which  appears  through  all  his  works,  and  some- 
times makes  ample  amends  for  want  of  poetry  and  language." 
Baker,  David  Erskine  and  Jones,  Stephen.  "Biographica  Dram- 
atica."  Longman,  London,  1812,  vol.  2,  p.  355. 

1.-  "A  scandal  novel  or  secret  history  is  that  type  of  pseudo- 
historical  romance  which  interpreted  actual  history  in  the 
light  of  court  intrigue.  The  writers  proceeded  on  the  theory 
that  secret  history  in  recognizing  woman's  influence  upon 
the  destiny  of  nations  was  more  true  than  ’pure'  history, 
which  took  into  account  only  religious,  social,  or  moral 
factors  in  judging  the  conduct  of  kings  and  statesmen." 
Whicher,  George  Frisbie.  "The  Life  and  Romances  of  Mrs. 

Eliza  Haywood, " Columbia  University  Press,  New  York,  1915, 
p.  95 . 


26 


reveal  the  faults  or  misfortunes  of  loth  sexes,  to  the  ruin 
of  public  fame  or  disturbance  of  private  happinessl" 

The  work  was  drawn  from  fifteen  or  sixteen  biog- 
raphies of  Mary  hastily  translated  from  the  French  to  compete 
with  a rival  volume,  'T’he  History  of  the  Life  and  Reign  of 
Mary  Stuart, " published  a week  earlier.  It  differs  from 
Mrs.  Haywood’s  fiction  only  in  the  large  proportion  of  events 
between  the  scenes  of  flaming  passion  and  romantic  ardor  which 
she  drew  so  frequently.  "As  history  it  ie  worthless,  and  its 
significance  as  fiction  lies  merely  in  its  attempt  to  incorp- 
orate imaginative  love  scenes  with  historical  fact."^^ 

3£aaE-§*aa  A A& 

With  the  year  1725  there  came  a decline  in  the 
popularity  of  the  Mary  Stuart  story,  and  for  fifty  years 
there  was  no  novel  or  drama  in  which  the  Scottish  queen 
was  a principal  figure.  By  that  time  the  main  outlines 
of  its  episodes  had  been  determined.  Riemer  had  taken 
the  murder  of  Darnley  and  the  union  with  Bothwell  as  the 
moment  in  "Von  hohen  Verm4Tnlungen,  "the  German  dramas  had 
concerned  themselves  with  Mary’s  execution,  and  Banks  had 
utilized  Norfolk’s  love  for  Mary. 

By  1725,  too,  there  had  appeared  the  three  possible 
attitudes  ^iich  an  author  might  adopt  toward  Mary  Stuart. 

The  first,  that  of  the  ardent  Catholic  seeing  her  a queenly 

1.-  Whicher,  George  Frisbie,  "The  Life  and  Romances  of  Mrs. 
21iza  Haywood, " p.  97. 


27 


martyr,  .had  teen  selected  by  Jesuit  writers,  who  had  given 
it  prominence  in  German  and  Austrian  universities  and  in 
the  villages  of  the  Tyrol.  The  type  had  been  popular  until 
about  1570,  when  the  growing  spirit  of  toleration  had  made 
its  aggressive  Catholicism  unpleasant.  The  last  Jesuit 
drama  that  appeared  was  the  MRicciusM  (1705)  of  Karl  Kolc- 
zawa,  differing  from  its  predecessors  in  that  here,  for  the 
first  time  in  a continental  religious  drama,  Mary  is  subor- 
dinated to  Riccio.  He  is  seen  as  a blameless  foreigner  who 
shares  his  queen’s  martyrdom.'1^ 

"Riccius"  is  significant  in  that  it  combines  the 
religious  motive  with  a second  attitude  toward  Mary  Stuart  - 
that  of  the  author  who  sets  a story  of  his  own  creation  ag- 
ainst a background  of  historical  fact  and  who  cares  less 
to  be  scientifically  accurate  than  to  write  entertainingly. 
Without  compunction  he  will  add  a new  lover  to  the  list  of 
Mary’s  gallants,  attribute  children  to  her  and  Bothwell  or 
to  her  and  Norfolk,  and  dwell  upon  the  amours  of  Elizabeth 
and  Leicester.  Like  Regnault  and  Madame  de  Lafayette,  he 
may  use  Mary’s  fate  merely  as  a picturesque  setting  by  em- 
phasizing one  of  the  minor  figures  in  the  story. 

Over  half  the  novels  and  plays  interested  in  Mary 
Q^een  of  Scots  show  this  use  of  history  for  its  romantic 


1.-  MRicciueM  follows  the  dramas  of  Prague,  Krems,  and  Neu- 
berg  in  a close  imitation  of  the  classical  tragedy,  with  a. 
heavenly  chorus  and  attendant  virtues  supporting  the  lovely 
martyr.  The  play  presents  Riccius’  attempt  to  rid  the  court 
of  English  conspirators,  his  partial  success,  and  his  down- 
fall through  Larnley’s  groundless  jealousy.  The  style  is 
pedantic.  Long  descriptions  of  political  ethics,  conjugal 
felicity,  and  Catholic  dogma  are  introduced. 


. 


2 8 


suggestion  and  its  color.  Several  have  a desire  to  present 
her  vividly  and  completely  and  to  suggest  an  interpretation 
of  her  career  based  on  reliable  evidence.  A far  greater  num- 
ber, however,  prefer  not  to  describe  her  as  a living  woman. 

She  is  for  them  a name  with  many  associations  of  pomp,  glory, 
and  passion,  and  they  set  her,  a puppet  figure,  in  their 
stories  of  adventure  and  intrigue.  As  literature  they  rank 
with  Mrs.  Haywood’s  scandal  novel  of  1725. 

By  1725  also  not  only  had  the  religious  and  roman- 
tic aspects  of  the  Mary  Stuart  problem  been  considered,  but 
there  had  been  an  examination  of  her  early  years  in  Scotland 
by  an  analyst  of  human  cha raeter  interested  in  laying  bare 
the  inner  motives  that  sway  mankind.  Johannes  Riemer,  the 
obscure  German  schoolmaster  at  Weissenfels,  had  attempted  to 
discover  objectively  what  there  was  in  Mary ’ s nature  and  in 
her  environment  that  led  tier  to  react  as  she  did  in  the  crises 
of  her  life.  He  was  ready  to  accept  her  as  "a  respectable 
type  of  royal  womanhood,  a pardo  nable  if  not  admirable  example 
of  human  character, " ^ ^ and  he  neither  accused  her  or  de- 
fended her.  The  impression  that  her  conduct  makes  upon  him  is 
regret  that  her  nature  was  not  firm  enough  or  fine  enough  to 
withstand  temptation. 

In  the  development  of  the  Mary  Stuart  tradition  in 
literature  "Vo n hohen  Verm&ilungen"  is  unique.  After  the  de- 
cline of  the  Jesuit  drama,  English  men  of  letters  were  free 

1.-  Swinburne,  Algernon  Charles.  "Note  on  the  Character  of 
Mary  Queen  of  Scots."  Fortnightly  Review,  vol.  57,  1882, 
p.  14. 


» 

* 

29 

to  choose  either  of  two  courses:  they  might  follow  Regnault 

and  Madame  de  Lafayette  in  using  Mary’s  fate  as  picturesque 
material,  or  they  might  follow  Riemer  in  a minute  analysis 
of  her  character.  Their  dependence  on  French  modes  during 
the  Restoration  led  them  to  choose  the  former  path.  Not  until 
Swinburne’s  trilogy  (1855,  1874,  1881)  did  any  novelist  or 
dramatist  attempt  the  psychological  study  of  Mary’s  character 
that  Riemer  had  undertaken  in  1579. 


’ ^ t ..  } • ' • . *•'.  *>  •*•*»*< 

, 

jC  / <.  H.yvt  f t;J  T .v<  i I (H  ) *11  "l 

’ J u:  r *t<  t i>li  11 


II.  MARY  STUART  IN  LITERATURE  FROM  1725  TO  1820 


For  a period  of  fifty  years  after  the  publication 
of  Mrs.  Haywood’s  secret  history  there  was  no  mention  in  lit- 
erature of  Mary  Stuart . The  pseudo-classical  spirit  of  the 
age  of  Addison,  reflecting  the  temper  of  aristocratic  French 
literature,  regarded  unfavorably  the  selection  of  modern 
themes  and  looked  to  the  classics  for  its  models  in  form  and 
substance.  As  a result  there  was  little  dramatic  literature 
of  native  character  in  England  during  the  early  eighteenth 
century,  and  none  at  all  with  a reference  to  Maiy  Stuart. 

John  Banks’  ’The  Albion  Queens”  had  remained  since  1S74  the 

(l) 

only  important  endeavor  to  defend  her.' 

Mary’s  fame  had  been  permanently  blackened  by  the 
wide  circulation  that  the  English  had  given  to  the  accus- 
ations of  Buchanan  and  Drury.  During  the  reign  of  Elizabeth 
no  charitable  comment  might  appear,  and  any  effort  at  re- 
deeming her  name  in  the  reign  of  Jame  I or  Charles  I would 
have  been  a hazardous  undertaking.  James  did,  however,  forbid 
under  penalty  of  death  the  publication  of  Buchanan’s  pamphlets. 
A few  historians  had  written  impartial  accounts  of  her  life, 
but  the  poets  and  dramatists  were  more  successful  in  setting 
their  views  before  the  public.  The  English  people,  moreover, 
were  glad  to  believe  any  charges  against  Mary,  a foreigner, 

1.-  ”Biographica  Dramatic*,  ” vol.  5,  p.  24,  no.  151,  lists 
a drama  "Mary  Queen  of  Scotland,  advertised  among  others, 
as  sold  by  Wellington,  in  St.  Paul’s  Churchyard,  in  1705.” 

This  probably  refers  to  the  early  printing  of  Banks’  tragedy, 
which  was  known  under  various  titles,  particularly  "The  Is- 
land Queens”  and  "The  Albion  Queens.” 


- 


' 


( 


t 


< 


SI 


a Frenchwoman,  and  a Catholic.  Elizabeth  was  a benevolent 
queen,  with  whom  the  majority  of  her  subject  a were  well  sat- 
isfied, and  no  exaltation  of  Mary  could  be  popular  as  long 
as  the  Virgin  Q,ueen  was  universally  admired.  This  extra- 
vagant praise,  almost  adoration,  of  Elizabeth  continued 
well  into  the  century,'1 2'  until  the  efforts  of  the  Pretenders 
to  regain  the  throne  brought  the  Stuart  cause  into  prominence. 


The  Attitude  ,of  German  Cynicistq  Toward  Mfetry  Stuart 

During  the  period  Mary  became  the  prey  of  contemp- 
orary ballads  and  long  narrative  poems  which  exhibited  her 

(2) 

the  incarnation  of  vice.  Hot  only  was  she  so  regarded  in 

England  and  Scotland,  but  she  was  the  object  of  similar  at- 
tacks throughout  Germany,  a country  which  at  the  time  of  her 
death  had  hailed  her  as  a saint  and  martyr.  The  best  example 
of  this  attitude  is  "Marie  Stuart,"  by  C.  H.  Spiesz,  in  many 
ways  the  most  revolting  treatment  that  the  story  has  ever 
produced.  It  is  not  the  fate  of  Mary  that  Spiesz  delights 
in  dwelling  upon,  for  he  presents  her  so  inconsist ent ly  vir- 
tuous and  sinful  that  she  inspires  no  sympathy.  He  is  ab- 
sorbed in  the  wickedness  of  Murray  and  Walter  Mildmay  (the 
English  chancellor),  men  whose  hatred  of  the  queen  arises 

1. -  "If  Walpole  (in  ’Royal  and  Noble  Authors’)  had  treated 
the  character  of  Queen  Elizabeth  with  dirrespect,  all  the 
women  should  tear  him  to  pieces,  for  abusing  the  glory  of 
her  sex."  ( ’^The  Works  of  Dodsley,  ” M.  V/ • Montagu.  London, 
1803,  vol.  5,  p.  150). 

2. -  See  Child,  F.  J.  "The  English  and  Scottish  Popular  Bal- 
lads, " Boston,  1882;  Cranstoun,  James,  "Satirical  Poems  of 
the  Time  of  the  Reformation, " Edinburgh  and  London,  1891; 
and  Irving,  David,  "History  of  Scottish  Poetry,"  Edinburgh, 
1861,  pp.  405,  422,  441. 

5.-  Played  before  a royal  audience  in  Berlin  in  1787. 


.... 


. 


. 


- 

' 

' 

. 

I ■ 


. 

. 


Z2 


from  a fundamentally  evil  nature  and  an  inhuman  blood-lust. 

Spiesz  uses  'The  Albion  Queens"  as  his  source, 
but  the  material  is  transformed  by  his  cynical  conception  of 
man’s  essential  depravity.  Mary  especially  suffers  at  his 
hands.  In  the  first  act  she  is  a spoiled,  petulant  coquette; 
in  the  succeeding  four  she  is  a poor,  wronged  woman.  As  a 
heroine  she  has  no  dramatic  meaning,  no  tragic  significance. 

From  the  first  her  lot  is  decided.  Murray  and  Mildmay  are 
not  disconcerted  by  her  Innocence,  for  they  have  decided  that 
she  must  die.^1^ 

Elizabeth,  like  her  rival,  is  greatly  debased  in 
Spiesz*  effort  to  show  that  there  is  no  nobility  in  the  mot- 
ives that  guide  mankind.  In  "The  Albion  Queens"  she  genuinely 
weighs  her  natural  tendency  to  mercy  with  what  she  has  come 
to  consider  the  best  interests  of  the  state.  Her  indignation 
at  Mary’s  ingratitude  is  that  of  a virtuous  woman  and  a dig- 
nified sovereign.  Even  after  her  decision  is  made  she  would 
modify  it  did  not  a sense  of  justice  forbid.  In  "Marie  Stuart/’1 
however,  Elizabeth  is  only  nominally  "merciful,  just,  tender- 
hearted"; the  court iers’  plaudits  deceive  no  one.  She  ex- 
hibits as  a queen  a moral  elevation  and  a power  of  delivering 
intensely  personal  invective  that  would  do  credit  t o an  Eng- 
lish fishwife,  and  as  a woman  a heartlessness  and  violent  hat- 

1.-  Mildmay:  "Oder  abnahmt  Gleichvieli  Sind  die  Briefe  auth- 

entisch,  urn  so  besser,  sind  sie  falsch,  auch  gut l Sie  be- 

weisen  doch,  was  sie  beweisen  sollen Sie  beftfrdern  rneinen 

Plan  und  ich  den  Ihrigen.  Sey  er  gerecht  Oder  nicht,  gilt 
wohl  beyden  gleich.  Mit  engen  Gewissen  und  offnen  Herzen,  mein 
lieber  Graf,  kommt  man  bey  Ho.fe  nicht  weit . Wenn  sich  ein 
Gltfck  anbietet,  der  musz  es  annehmen,  und  ist’s  nicht  eins,  ob 
man  auf  einen  graden  Oder  Seitenweg  danach  auegeht?" 


- 

. 

- 

- 

* 

V 

- 

♦ 

- 

. 

■ 


. 


53 


red  that  disgraces  her  sex.  Instead  of  judiciously  deter- 
mining Mary’s  sent ence  she  entertains  her  counsellors  with  an 
amusing  hit  of  comedy:  she  flies  into  a terrific  passion  at 

the  sight  of  the  casket  letters  (which  she  has  ordered  them 
to  prepare)  and  is  with  difficulty  restrained  from  starting 
to  Eotheringay  for  hand  to  hand  encounter  with  her  royal  sis- 
t er. 

After  this  impressive  view  of  English  royalty  one 
expects  the  fitting  close  to  the  play  that  comes  with  Mary’s 
farewells  at  the  scaffold.  The  grisly  suggestion  of  the 
scene  is  worthy  of  Spiesz  in  his  best  manner.  Amid  the 
groans  of  her  maids  Mary  is  led  off  the  stage,  there  are 
three  thuds  as  the  axe  descends  again  and  again,  the  first 
blow  having  been  ineffective,  and  Murray,  complacent ly  rub- 
bing his  hands,  departs  for  London  to  delight  Elizabeth 
with  the  news.  After  this  revolting  picture  one's  faith  in 
human  character  in  its  potential  nobility  is  somewhat  re- 
stored on  learning  that  the  play  was  received  with  great 
hostility  by  Berlin  audiences. 

£en£)ved  Anter^sWn  ^^ry  ^ij^Mi  d- E ^i^t  eyit  u 

While  poets  and  playwrights  were  emphasizing  the 
sensational  elements  in  Mary’s  career,  the  situations  and  con- 
trasts of  character  that  were  theatrically  effective,  hist- 
orians were  beginning  a critical  examination  of  the  accus- 
ations against  her.  There  was  the  problem  of  the  casket 

1.-  "Las  Publikum  nahm  dieses  mitt elm^szig e Produkt  nach  Ver- 
di enst  auf.  Sich  an  die sen  St  off  zu  wagen,  ist  ein  ktfhner 
Gedanke  eines  Autors,  dem  es  sowohl  an  Sprache  als  an  Erf ind- 
ung f ehlt . " ( "Lite rat ur-  und  Theat erzei tung , " Wien,  1784,  p.119) 


34 

letters,  which,  forged  or  genuine,  had  brought  to  en  end  her 
long  stay  in  prison.  There  were  the  perplexities  to  be  ex- 
plained in  her  early  reign  in  Scotland,  especially  her  com- 
plicity in  Darnley’e  murder  and  her  relations  with  his  murd- 
erer. There  was  yet  to  be  determined  the  position  of  Riccio 
and  Chastelard  as  the  amorous  dupes  of  the  queen  or  as  blame- 
less attendants,  and  there  was  the  task  of  uncovering  her 
real  personality  to  determine  its  pert  in  bringing  the  final 
catastrophe. 

In  1754  there  appeared  the  first  important  defense 
of  Mary  in  Goodall’s  "Examination  of  the  letters  said  to  be 
written  by  Mary  queen  of  Scots  to  lames  earl  of  Bothwell,  also 
an  inquiry  into  the  murder  of  King  Henry.1'  It  was  followed 
by  the  histories  of  William  Robertson  end  David  Hume,  both 
critical  though  somewhat  prejudiced  studies  of  her  reign,  and 
by  John  Whitaker’s  "Mary  Queen  of  Scots  Vindicated.**  The 
latter  work  is  devoted  to  the  casket  letters  and  regards  Mary’s 
death  as  an  act  in  which  "Elisabeth’s  avowed  passions  of 
rivalehip  were  much  more  intimately  concerned,  than  the  well- 
feigned  purposes  of  interest  or  religion.  ^ 

But  these  studies,  admirable  though  they  were  for 
their  careful  examination  of  sources,  were  not  actuated  solely 
by  a desire  for  historical  accuracy.  In  part  they  owed  their 

1.-  **lt  was  an  Englieh  queen  who  could  do  this,"  continues  Whit- 
aker, "it  was  one  of  the  most  enlightened  princes  that  ever  sat 
on  the  throne  of  England;  it  was  one,  whose  name  I was  taught 
to  lisp  in  my  infancy  as  the  honour  of  her  sex,  and  the  glory 
of  our  i sle . " 


- 


. 


... 


35 


choice  of  subject  to  the  movement  of  sent iment all sm  which 
dominated  English  letters  in  the  last  ha, If  of  the  century, 
after  death  in  1744  removed  dope’s  brilliant  example.  The 
zeal  for  lew  and  order  which  charact erized  the  classical 
spirit  had  sacrificed  any  great  interest  in  the  emotions. 

It  had  set  up  rigid  standards  of  form,  beauty,  polish,  and 
refinement,  but  their  appeal  was  to  the  intellect,  the  mind 
trained  to  appreciate  subtle  distinctions.  Now,  in  reaction, 
men  were  turning  to  events  in  the  past  or  in  remote  parts 
of  the  earth  to  escape  from  the  world  of  London  coffee-houses 
and  drawing-rooms.  Shakespeare  was  successfully  revived  by 
Garrick.  A new  impetus  was  given  to  the  drama  by  the  in- 
clusion, as  serious  material,  not  as  objects  of  satire,  of 
lives  which  because  of  rudeness  or  humble  station  had  been 
regarded  with  contempt  by  the  aristocratic  Augustan  age. 
Adherents  of  the  school  came  to  see  human  nature  as  fund- 
amentally good,  pure,  and  lovely,  with  tragedy  consisting  of 
virtue  in  undeserved  distress.  Evil  was  a matter  of  the 
emotions,  created  by  non-ccnf  ormit  y,  and  atonable  by  sub- 
sequent rectitude. 

It  was  natural  that  Mary’s  cause  should  attract 
both  historians  and  dramatists  in  this  age  dominated  by  a 
new  feeling  for  man,  greater  tenderness  for  the  unfortunate, 
greater  sympathy  for  the  humble  and  obscure,  and  awakened 
interest  in  life  in  distant  countries  and  earlier  times. 

The  accusations  against  her  had  been  so  bitter  and  so  pro- 
longed that  on  first  glance  she  seemed  the  victim  of  slander- 


. 


, 

. 


, 


, 


, 


36 


oue  malice.  The  decline  of  Elizabeth’ s popularity  made  poss- 
ible the  praise  of  a rival  queen,  and  the  abatement  of 
religious  hatred  allowed  an  emphasis  on  the  pathos  of  Mary’s 
death  not  permitted  in  a time  of  bitter  strife  between  Cath- 
olics and  Prot estarrt 8.  Mary  might  be  viewed  as  a pure,  noble- 
minded  woman  caught  inextricably  in  the  toils  of  circumstance 
and  bearing  heroically  her  unmerited  suffering.  At  the  same 
time  there  were  interesting  possibilities  in  the  view  that 
recognized  her  as  an  evildoer  but  which  promptly  exculpated 
her  by  showing  her  innate  goodness. 

Mary  Stuart  Viewed  bv  the  School  of  Sentimentalism 
It  was  in  the  guise  of  a virtuous  woman  unjustly 
brought  to  death  that  laiy  Queen  of  Scots  appeared  in  English 

literature  during  the  eighties  and  nineties.  She  was  the 

( 2 ) 

heroine  of  a play  by  Dr.  Thomas  Erancklin,  a play,  "Mary 

f 3J 

Queen  of  Scotland”  by  John  Yorke,  • * and  a long  novel,  “The 


1. -  A review  in  1784  of  ‘The  Albion  Queens’*  illustrates  this 

attitude,  not  possible  a century  earlier:  *The  characters  of 

both  queens  seem  to  be  at  length  clearly  understood.  Abilit- 
ies of  the  first  class  at  that  time  were  the  qualifications 
of  both  - but  a Good  Woman  would  conceive  it  a profanation 

to  have  it  said,  her  heart  was  not  better  than  either  thmt  of 
the  one  or  the  other.” 

2. -  In  "Biographies.  Dra.matica,  ” vol.  3,  p.  24  there  is  listed 
a tragedy,  ”Mary  Queen  of  Scots,  in  Ms.  bound  v-ith  a volume 
of  Dr.  Erancklin’s  two  printed  tragedies,  and  bearing  intern- 
al evidence  of  having  been  written  by  him.  The  author  is  Dr. 
Thomas  Erancklin  ( “Dictionary  of  National  Biography,”  vol.  1, 
p.  252),  whose  eldest  son  in  1837  published  the  play,  till 
then  in  manuscript.  ‘Thomas  Erancklin,  Mary  Queen  of  Scots, 
an  Historical  Play,  edited  by  Lieutenant  -Colonel  William  Eran- 
cklin.” Pickering,  London,  1837. 

3. -  Notes  and  Queries,  series  7,  no.  8,  July-Decerober , 1889, 

p.  486  ff . refers  to  "Mary,  Queen  of  Scotland:  an  Historical 

Tragedy”  (c.  1780 ) by  "John  Yorke"  of  Gourth waite,  Yorkshire. 


' 


♦ 


I 


37 


Recess,  " Toy  Sophia  Lee.  The  latter  work  is  especially  in  the 
mood  of  the  sentimentalist,  setting  forth  Mary’s  love  for 

the  two  daughters  which  she  hears  to  Norfolk  after  their  secret 

m (l) 

marriage  at  Tut  bury. 

Perhaps  the  most  perfect  illustration,  however,  of 
eighteenth  century  sentimentalism  influencing  the  story  of 


Mary  Stuaxt  is  the  "Mary  Gjueen  of  Scots”  hy  John  St.  John, 

played  hy  Kemble  and  Mrs.  Siddons  at  Drury  Lane,  March  30, 

(2) 

1789.  It  follows  Banks  closely,  often  borrowing  unchanged 

( 1 ) 

its  dialogue.  ' It  differs  from  its  predecessors  in  its 
complete  disregard  for  the  unities  and  its  insistence  of  the 
pathos  of  Mary's  last  days.  There  is  evinced,  as  in  Banks, 
sympathy  for  both  queens,  each  an  admirable  woman,  and  there 
is  similarly  much  made  of  Norfolk’s  struggle  between  love 
and  honor.  It  is  significant  of  a change  from  the  heroic 
play  to  the  romantic  or  sentimental  play  that  Norfolk  here 
unhesitatingly  places  love  foremost. ^ The  dramatic  formula 


1. -  “The  Recess  was  not  a masquerade,  but  the  plot  and  char- 
acters slightly  picture  the  reign  of  Elizabeth.  This  was  one 
of  the  first  novels  in  which  there  was  an  attempt  to  represent 
a past  age  with  something  like  accuracy.  As  this  was  the  first 
historical  novel,  using  the  term  in  the  modern  sense,  it  had 
perhaps  a right  to  be  one  of  the  poorest  for  it  is  impossible 
to  conceive  three  volumes  of  print  in  which  there  are  fewer 
sentences  that  leave  an  impress  on  the  mind  than  this  once  pop- 
ular novel.”  (Whitmore,  Clara  H.  "Woman' s Work  in  English 
Fiction."  G.  P.  Putnam’s,  New  York,  1910,  p.  105. 

2. -  Genest,  John.  "Some  Account  of  the  English  Stage,"  vol.  5, 
pp.  535-35. 

3. -  Compare  Banks  Act  V,  scene  1 with  St  John  Act  V,  scene  4. 

4. -  A.e  in  Banks,  there  is  evidence  externally  of  this  struggle 
in  the  duke’s  mind,  but  the  weight  of  sentiment  is  cast  so  com- 
pletely in  favor  of  love  that  there  is  little  necessity  for  a 
choice.  Norfolk,  whose  wavering  in  the  heroic  "The  Albion 
Queens"  was  regarded  as  commendable,  is  now  viewed  somewhat  con 
temptuouely  - the  "half-paced,  soft,  scrupulous  fool." 


. 


■ 

. 

. 

, 


- 


- 

« . « 

■ 


- 


1 


28 


underlying  the  play  is  obviously  the  belief  that  tragedy  con- 
sists of  the  misfortunes  of  the  righteous.  In  consequence 

(1) 

the  play  contains  no  real  conflict  and  reaches  no  high 
level  of  intensity. ' 

Weakness  of  Sentimental  Interpretation  of  Mary  Stuart 

The  reason  for  the  failure  of  these  sentimentalist 
novels  and  plays  is  their  inability  to  see  Mary’s  life  com- 
pletely and  to  present  it  with  all  its  inconsistencies.  Their 
authors  deal  with  the  materials,  in  their  optimistic  faith 
in  human  purity,  as  inadequately  as  those,  like  Spiesz,  who 
exhibit  Mary  essentially  wicked  and  ignoble.  The  two  choose 
different  periods  in  her  life,  the  eighteenth  century  sent- 
imentalist taking  her  imprisonment  and  execution,  the  time 
when  she  seems  most  th= victim  of  tyranny  and  oppression,  and 


1. -  St.  John  neglects  the  opportunities  which  he  has  for 
spirited  description  and  resorts  to  frequent  soliloquies  to 
aid  in  the  exposition.  He  entirely  omits  an  interview  be- 
tween Elizabeth  and  Mary,  a scene  that  was  very  effective 
in  "TheAlbion  Qjjeens.”  The  sources  of  action  are  not  seen; 
events  only  are  presented,  and  they  in  summary  fashion. 

2. -  This  la.ck  of  dramatic  warmth  was  apparent  in  the  stage 

production.  A contemporary  review  (European  Magazine,  vol. 
15,  1769,  p.  242)  speaks  of  the  play  as  rather  a narrative 
than  a drama:  "a  versification  of  parts  of  Robertson’s 

History  and  is  cold  and  uninteresting.  No  person  ever  saw 
Mrs.  Siddons  in  such  a colorless  role.  No  one  ever  wit- 
nessed Bank’s  play  on  this  subject  without  tears;  but  even 
the  efforts  of  Mrs.  Siddons  could  hardly  produce  any  at 
this  representation Some  parts  of  the  piece  had  a lud- 

icrous effect,  and  some  were  tedious.  It  had  a most  power- 
ful support  from  the  audience  of  the  first  night  ; but  with 
every  assistance  of  scenes,  dresses,  and  excellent  acting, 
will  probably  never  be  popular." 

The  published  version  of  the  play,  however,  reached  a 
third  edition  within  the  year. 


39 


the  materialist  selecting  her  early  rule  in  Scotland,  years 
when  she  seems  a heartless,  immoral  coquette.  Writers  of  the 
two  schools  alike  isolate  her  character  from  its  historical 
setting  and  portray  it  to  win  pity  or  arouse  repulsion.  A 
century  earlier  the  reverse  had  been  true,  her  personality 
being  ignored  and  the  factors  in  her  environment  receiving 
first  attention.  Catholic  writers  had  seized  upon  the  relig- 
ious issue  to  canonize  her,  and  apologists  had  described  the 
political  forces  at  work  in  England  and  Scotland  to  exculpate 
her  or  justify  Elizabeth.  Dramatists  in  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury as  well  as  in  the  seventeenth  centuxy  had  been  unable  to 
find  the  middle  ground  - to  portray  religious  and  political 
conditions  without  giving  theological  discussions  or  treatises 
on  diplomatic  ethics,  or,  in  depicting  her  personality,  to 
steer  between  the  sordidness  and  pessimism  of  scepticism  and 
the  puerile  optimism  of  sentimentalism. 

The  first  dramatist  to  suggest  a solution  of  the 
difficulty  was  Vittorio  Alfieri,  who  published  in  Florence  in 
1778  hie  "Maria  Stuarda.”  The  author  considered  the  play  wesk 
and  cold,  the  only  one  of  his  tragedies  which  he  regretted 
having  written.  In  spite  of  the  unreality  and  lack  of  ex- 
ternal action  for  which  he  condemns  it,  the  play  must  be  reck- 
oned with  because  of  its  two  innovations.  It  presents  a Prot- 
estant reaction  to  Mark’s  execution  in  showing  Scotch  Presby- 
terianism rightfully  triumphant  and  it  seeks  to  moke  Mary  the 
victim  of  her  own  deeds,  not  a puppet  with  no  part  in  the 
tragedy  which  consumes  her. 


. 


, 

« 


-• 


> 


« 


40 


It  ie  probable  that  Aifieri  was  not  grea.tly  con- 
cerned about  Mary  Stuart’s  ca,reer.  The  play  is  one  of  the 
many  historical  tragedies  which  he  wrote  and  was  undertaken 
at  the  request  of  his  fiancee,  the  Countess  of  Albany,  with- 
out any  thorough  study  of  the  period.  Had  he  been  anxious 
to  verify  his  impressions  of  the  story,  he  might  have  referred 
to  the  old  German  dramas  and  the  intrigue  plays  of  Diamante 
and  Savaro,  which  were  widely  circulated  in  Italy  and  which 

he  had  read  some  years  before.  He  chose  deliberately  to  for- 

(1) 

get  them,  not  wishing  to  put  restraints  upon  his  imagination. 

"Maria  Stuarda"  would  have  been  merely  the  ordinary 
story  of  Mary’ 8 life  at  Foth  er ingay  with  even  less  historical 
basis  than  usual,  had  not  Aifieri  applied  classical  tests 
to  the  scanty  stuff  from  which  he  made  his  play.  He  was  desir- 
ous above  all  of  writing  a drama  which  in  its  severity  of 
spirit,  its  observance  of  the  unities,  and  its  depiction  of 
a single  passion  would  approach  the  Greek  ideal  of  tragedy. 

The  French  drama  of  Regnault  failed  with  its  formlessness, 


1. -  Aifieri  once  boasted  that  his  tragedies  had  a style  and 
a movement  which  might  not  be  beautiful  but  which  was  his 
own  work.  He  declined  to  read  Shakespeare  lest  he  might  un- 
consciously model  his  dramatic  technique  after  that  of  the 
Elizabethans. 

2. -  Morton,  for  example,  does  not  appear  or  make  himself  felt 
at  any  point  in  the  action.  Murry  is  in  Scotland  and  in  com- 
munication with  the  queen  to  the  last.  Lamorre  is  created 

by  Aifieri’ s confusion  of  the  Regent  with  John  Knox.  Darn- 
ley  is  simply  a faithless,  thankless  husband  who  has  the  bad 
judgment  to  be  jealous,  and  Bothwell  is  the  urgent  champion 
of  the  perplexed  queen. 


. 

• 

. 

- 

• 

• 

. 

. 


•> 

- 


* 


41 


he  thought,  because  its  protagonist  was  merely  a paseive 

agent.  He  recognized  the  diffulty  of  making  Mary  a figure 

with  tragic  guilt  since  her  story  was  only  the  story  of  a 

(l) 

highly  unfortunate  woman,  but  he  met  it  by  the  intro- 
duction of  the  Puritan  Lamorre.  This  character,  compounded 
from  Murray  and  John  Knox,  forceiblly  presents  Presbyterian- 
ism as  the  faith  that  can  save  troubled  Scotland.  Mary  re- 
fuses to  abjure  Catholicism,  knowing  that  her  refusal  means 
civil  war.  In  this  test,  as  in  others  in  the  play,  she 
fails  because  her  emotions  dominate  her.  An  ambitious  woman 
she  will  not  give  the  crown  matrimonial  to  Parnley  because 
he  will  then  be  her  equal.  She  loves  him,  inconsistently 
enough,  with  a passionate  ardor,  even  while  his  weakness  and 
arrogance  arouse  her  contempt.  "Ah,  were  I skilled  in  reign 
ing,  as  I am  in  loving  thee,  "she  says  once,  but  she  makes  no 
effort  to  deliver  the  government  to  wiser  hands. 

Her  lot  is  not  wholly  of  her  own  making,  however, 
for  environment  has  forced  her  into  the  power  of  evil  court- 
iers. At  the  end  of  the  play  she  dedicatee  herself  to  veng- 
eance for  Parnley’ s murder: 

'The  truth  shall  be  discovered 
And  let  him  tremble,  whoso’ er  he  be 
The  atrocious  author  of  a deed  like  this. 

For  vengeance  now,  and  nothing  else  I live." 


1.-  "stante  che  chi  la  fa  uccidere  e Elisabetta,  la  natural 
sua  capitale  nemica  e rivele;  e che  non  v’e  tra  loro  percio 
ne  legami,  ne  contrast!  di  passione,  che  rendando  tragedia- 
bile  la  morte  di  Maria,  abbenche  veramente  inguista,  straord 
irm, rie.,  e tragicamente  funesta."  (Magnoni,  Tereeita.  "Le 
donne  delle  Tragedie  di  Vittorio  Alfieri."  Naples,  1900). 


. 


, 


. 


42 


Eut  she  has  trusted  too  far  to  Eothwell.  There  is  no  hope  tha.t 

she  can  retain  the  throne. 

The  Humanistic  Attitude  Toward  Mary  Stuart 

Alfieri’s  fondness  for  Greek  simplicity  constantly 

tends  to  efface  everything  hut  the  main  lines  of  the  action, 

and  the  play,  in  consequence,  lacks  warmth. Yet  it  makes 

a notable  stride  forward  in  the  literary  history  of  Mary 

Stuart,  in  that  it  marks  a stage  between  sentimentalism  and 
( o) 

humanism,  ' the  former  seeing  Mary  as  a naturally  noble  char- 
acter, the  latter  seeing  her  as  inseparably  a compound  of  good 
and  evil.  The  former  sees  tragedy  in  her  undeserved  distress, 
while  to  the  latter  her  real  tragedy  lies  in  her  fatal  weak- 
ness, that  fault  that  brings  to  ruin  a character  capable  of 
attaining  great  heights. 


1. -  The  characters  are  few  - five  in  number  (Mary,  Earnley, 
Eothwell,  Ormond,  the  English  ambassador,  and  Lamorre,  the 
apostle  of  peace  - and  the  narrative  moves  to  its  appointed 
end  without  any  explanatory  dialogue.  To  a certain  extent 
the  brevity  and  restraint  are  worthy  of  praise,  but  they  do 
not  allow  enough  graphic  description  to  give  the  impression 
of  reality.  The  episode  of  Earnley’ s death,  for  example, 
is  told  as  nonchalant ly  as  if  no  one  beyond  the  four  char- 
acters in  the  play  were  involved. 

2. -  Three  years  after  St.  John’s  play  (1792)  appeared  Mrs. 

Mary  Eeverell’s  "Mary  Queen  of  Scots  - an  Historical  Tragedy, 
or  Eramatic  Poem,"  of  which  Genest  (vol.  10,  p.  20l)  says: 

"a  poor  play,  particularly  in  point  of  language."  "Biographies 
Eramatica,  " vol.  3,  p.  25,  part  1,  no.  186  subjoins  a "short 
but  perhaps  sufficient  specimen  of  this  lady’s  poetry: 

Qu.  Mary:  Earth’s  summit  of  bliss  i’ve  long  since  reach’d: 

How  in  misery  chain’d,  each  state  I retrospect." 

The  play,  like  Alfieri’s  "Maria  Stuerda,  " makes  Mary  the 
victim  of  her  own  sin,  but  the  conception  of  character  is  thor- 
oughly in  accord  with  sentimental  tenets. 


- 


- 

. 

- 

■ 

' 


. 

. 


45 


The  possibilities  for  a well-rounded  depiction  of 
Mary’s  character  which  Alfieri  barely  touched  were  realized 
for  the  first  time  in  literature  by  Schiller  in  his  "Maria 
Stuart."  In  accordance  with  the  humanistic  or  classical  tem- 
per here  was  undertaken  a representation  of  a drama  of  human 
passion  against  a historical  background.  The  situation 
Schiller  recognized  as  one  with  inherent  elements  that  could 
arouse  pity  and  fear.  The  chief  problem  was  to  build  a plot 
in  which  Mary  would  appear  acting the  climax  must  be  the 
inevitable  result  of  her  own  sin.  He  therefore  invented  the 
figure  of  Mortimer,  who  awakened  Mary’s  desire  for  liberty 
but  effected  her  destruction  when  she  chose  Leicester’s  love 
instead  of  his. 

Mary  at  the  beginning  of  the  play  feels  keenly  the 
wrongs  done  her,  but  her  old  spirit  is  broken.  Her  long  im- 
prisonment, the  separation  from  her  friends,  the  suspense 
regarding  her  fate,  the  refusal  of  religious  consolation, 
the  remorse  for  the  murder  of  Larnley  - all  have  brought  her 
so  near  despair  that  she  endures  Paulet’s  insults  with  patient 
dignity  . 

It  is  at  this  time  when  Mary  believes  herself  com- 
pletely abandoned  that  Mortimer  declares  himself  a convert  to 
Catholicism  and  her  devoted  adherent.  His  story  of  the  French 
court  recalls  vividly  her  happy  days  at  Paris,  and  the  news 


1*-  Schiller  arrived  independently  at  this  conclusion.  He  did 
not  read  Alfieri  until  1805,  three  years  after  "Maria  Stuart" 
was  written.  He  knew  "The  Albion  Queens,"  but  he  used  Euchan- 
an,  Hume,  and  Archenholz  as  his  main  sources.  For  the  account 
of  the  execution  he  relied  on  the  description  in  Brantome. 


. 


. 


. 

, 

, . 


' 

* 


- 

. 


44 


that  the  duke  of  Guise  is  still  scheming  for  her  rescue 
brings  new  hope.  Sympathetic  companionship  and  the  promise 
of  aid  work  an  entire  change  iii  her  mental  condition.  She 
ceases  to  wait  quietly  for  Elizabeth’s  decision,  and  sends 
a letter  to  Leicester  asking  his  help.  Self-confidence  re- 
stored by  the  prospect  of  release,  she  refuses  to  accept  Bur- 
leigh’s announcement  of  the  sentence  of  the  court.  With  a 
spirit  that  she  did  not  show  before  she  presents  in  an  eloq- 
uent speech  the  illegality  of  her  trial,  making  it  clear 
that  tyranny,  not  justice,  has  prompted  the  verdict. 

The  first  act,  with  its  skilful  exposition  and  the 
keen  interest  which  it  arouses  in  Mary’s  fortunes,  accomplishes 
more  than  the  entire  five  acts  of  St.  John’s  play.  Mary  is 
not  a woman  without  faults,  but  her  remorse  for  her  sin  is 
sincere  and  awakens  the  reader’s  pity.  She  has  been  en- 
dowed by  a deeply  passionate  nature,  and  her  education 
in  France  and  her  surroundings  at  Holyrood  have  aided  in 
making  her  thoughtless  and  selfish.  Her  greed  for  power 
and  a mad  infatuation  for  Bothwell  have  led  her  to  consent 
to  the  murder  of  Darnley.  By  the  time  of  the  first  act 
her  better  nature  has  asserted  itself.  Her  conduct  in  Eng- 
land has  been  blameless. 

The  second  act,  laid  at  Elizabeth's  court,  exhibits 
Leicester,  a selfish,  ambitious,  cowardly  courtier  and  con- 
trasts his  pretended  love  for  the  Scottish  queen  with  the 
ardent,  sacrificial  passion  of  Mortimer.  It  introduces  Eliz- 
abeth, whom  Schiller  elsewhere  terras  his  "royal  hypocrite," 


" 

- 


, - 


45 


a vain  jealous  woman  whose  natural  cruelty  has  been  developed 
by  the  unhappiness  of  her  early  years.  Her  only  care  i s to 
preserve  the  appearance  of  virtue,  and  she  urges  Mortimer  to 
murder  Mary  that  she  may  not  have  to  deliver  judgment  against 
her. 

In  the  third  act  there  comes  the  test  of  both  Mary 
and  Elizabeth.  The  Scottish  queen  is  jubilant  over  the  lib- 
erty which  has  been  granted  her,  and  regards  it  as  an  indic- 
ation of  the  complete  freedom  that  Leicester  will  gain  for 
her.  Her  mental  condition  is  exact  ly  opposite  to  that  in 
which  she  appealed  to  Mortimer  for  an  interview.  In  her 
new-found  hope  of  release  she  has  no  desire  for  a reconcil- 
iation that  will  discredit  her  throughout  Europe.  She  con- 
trols herself,  however,  and  humbly  pleads  her  cause.  Met 
with  bitter  contempt,  she  answers  taunt  with  taunt,  incensed 
at  the  endeavor  to  make  her  shameful  in  Leicester's  eyes.  The 
world  knows  the  worst  of  her,  and  she  is  better  than  her  name, 
but  Elizabeth  covers  unchastity  with  the  garb  of  royal  honors. 
Silent  and  defeated  the  English  queen  withdraws,  leaving  Mary 
exultant  that  Leicester  has  witnessed  her  triumph. 

She  soon  learns  the  worth  of  his  affection.  He  will 
rish  nothing  for  her  sake,  and  her  conduct  has  closed  to  her 
tine  last  chance  of  mercy.  The  one  rescue  possible  for  her  is 
Mortimer's  plan,  which  he  will  undertake  only  in  return  for 
her  love.  She  has  sealed  her  own  doom. 

The  concluding  acts  show  the  close  of  Mary’s  life. 


43 


Her  sentence  is  precipitated  by  her  own  deed,^^  "but  she 
is  innocent  of  the  crime  for  which  she  suffers.  With  com- 
posure and  resignation  she  prepares  for  death,  receiving 

the  last  comforts  of  the  church  when  her  request  for  a 

(2) 

priest  is  unexpectedly  granted.''  She  forgives  Leicester 
his  cruel  mockery,  and  goes  forth  on  his  arm  to  the  scaf- 
fold as  she  once  thought  to  go  forth  with  him  to  the  altar. 

The  drama  does  not  end  here:  Elizabeth  cannot 

triumph  over  the  victim  of  her  jealousy  and  hypocrisy.  Her 
malice  avenges  itself  upon  her.  Shrewsbury  leaves  her, 
having  failed  to  recall  her  to  her  nobler  self,  her  favorite 
forsakes  her,  and  she  is  left  in  tragic  isolation. 

Schiller*  8 Analysis  of  the  aProbl^m 
The  greatest  advance  which  Schiller  makes  is  the 


1. -  The  fourth  act  shows  the  preparation  of  the  death-warrant  . 
Eurleigh  tells  Leicester  that  his  relations  with  Mary  are 
known  and  that  their  correspondence  has  been  seized.  With 
cowardly  selfishness  Leicester  thinks  only  of  concealing  his 
treason.  He  orders  Mortimer’s  arrest  as  a conspirator  and 
urges  Mary* a immediate  execution.  In  her  choice  of  lovers 
Mary  has  made  a fatal  error  of  judgment. 

When  the  death-warrant  comes  before  Elisabeth  for  sign- 
ature Burleigh  and  Shrewsbury,  the  one  wicked, the  other  just, 
advise  her  about  the  wisdom  of  the  deed.  The  queen  realizes 
that  her  enemy's  death  is  necessary  to  the  state,  but  person- 
al hatred  is  a stronger  motive.  Mary  has  come  between  her  and 
every  hope  of  happiness,  and  has  robbed  her  of  her  favorite, 
Lei cest  er. 

The  quarrel  scene  is  a controlling  factor  in  Elizabeth’s 
decision.  By  undertaking  a second  appeal  to  Leicester  Mary 
has  hastened  the  catastrophe. 

2. -  It  ha.8  been  argued  by  critics,  especially  by  German  Prot- 
estants that  Schiller  has  introduced  Catholic  propaganda  in 
allowing  Mary  to  receive  the  confessional  and  communion  on  the 
stage . 

To  accuse  Schiller  of  pro-Catholic  sympathies  is  utterly 
to  misunderstand  his  artistic  method.  He  is  intent  on  bring- 
ing to  the  aid  of  the  narrative  as  rich  and  varied  a setting 
as  he  can  devise.  The  scene  adds  both  pathos  and  a higher, 
more  spiritual  note. 


47 


application  of  the  humanistic  belief  that  human  character  is 
paradoxically  good  and  bad.  Eurleigh  is  a cool,  calculating 
statesman,  knowing  no  scruples  when  the  welfare  of  the  state 
is  involved,  but  his  conduct  is  mitigated  by  his  sincere  love 
for  England.  Simiarly  Mortimer’s  sensual  desires  are  com- 
pensated for  by  his  impulsive,  passionate  enthusiasm  for  Mary’s 
cause,  for  which  he  can  die  quietly  and  uncomplainingly . 

It  is  in  Mary  that  the  paradox  is  most  apparent.  The 
thoughtlessness  the  the  waywardness  that  made  her  sin  with 
Bothwell  have  been  atoned  for  by  twenty  years’  unmerited  suf- 
fering in  English  prisons.  In  discouraging  Mortimer's  plot 
to  assassinate  Elizabeth  she  stands  on  higher  moral  ground 
than  before,  although  she  is  attracted  to  Leicester  in  the 
same  manner  that  she  had  been  to  Bothwell.  The  quarrel  scene 
shows  still  further  development  of  her  better  nature,  for 
she  displays  a self-control  that  would  have  been  impossible 
in  earlier  days.  Yet  she  is  still  humanly  frail,  and  when 
she  does  give  way  to  her  scorn  and  hatred  she  becomes  viol- 
ently abusive.  In  a greater  moment  of  life,  the  last  fare- 
wells before  her  execution,  her  nobler  self  again  prevails. 

She  resolutely  renounces  earthly  hope,  and  death,  which  in  the 
first  act  held  many  horrors  to  her  remorseful  mind,  now  is 
welcomed  as  a haven  where  she  may  expiate  her  crime. 

This  Mary  combines  the  unrestrained  passion  of 
Riemer’s  Mary  with  the  serenity,  the  queenly  dignity,  and  the 
heroic  resignation  of  Banks’  heroine.  While  in  the  crises  of 
her  life  she  makes  her  own  decisions,  she  moulds  her  ideals 


■ 

. 

* 


. 


. 


. 


, 


48 


in  harmony  with  the  religious,  social,  and  political  "background. 
Schiller  does  not  advance  these  factors  in  palliation  of  her 
offense;  he  presents  them  as  part  of  Mary’s  milieu,  "by  in- 
teraction with  which  her  character  has  been  formed.  His  at- 
titude toward  them,  in  general  that  of  the  humanist,  is  one  of 
reverence  for  the  great  institutions  - the  church,  the  school, 
the  state,  the  court  - which  have  been  the  bearers  of  culture 
down  through  the  ages. 

An  interpretation  of  Mary  Stuart’s  character  which 
is  in  complete  harmony  with  that  of  Schiller  occurs  in  "The 
Abbot  " by  Sir  Walter  Scott  (1820).  It  treats  of  the  queen’s 

captivity  at  Lochleven  and  her  escape  to  Niddrie.  Both  this 
novel  and  "Maria  Stuart”  are  informed  by  a desire  to  present 
a human  theme  against  a setting  of  Scottish  history.  The 


1.-  A year  after  Schiller’s  "Maria  Stuart"  (l80l)  there  was 
published  in  Edinburgh  "Mary  Stewart  Queen  of  Scots,  a Hist- 
orical Drama, " which  dwelt  briefly  with  the  early  reign  of 
the  Scottish  queen.  It  centered  around  her  escape  from  Loch- 
leven, her  flight  to  England,  and  the  force  of  the  conspiracy 
against  her.  The  innovation  that  the  drama  makes  is  the  un- 
happy love  of  George  Douglas,  rescuer  of  Mary  from  Lochleven, 
and  her  attendant,  Adelaide  de  Verneul.  In  1807  the  play 
again  appeared,  under  the  title  "Mary  Steward  Queen  of  Scots, 
a Dramatic  Poem,  " with  the  name  of  the  author,  James  Grahame. 
The  play  was  never  acted,  lacking  "that  passionate  and  happy 
vigour  which  the  stage  requires."  (Cunningham,  Allan.  "Biog- 
raphical and  Critical  History  of  the  Last  Fifty  Years,"  Edin- 
burgh and  London,  1852.)  Although  it  is  frequently  incorrect 
in  composition  and  "deficient  in  dramatic  effect,  this  trag- 
edy is  not  without  some  claim  to  praise.  The  sentiments  are 
often  energetic,  and  suitable  to  the  characters  by  whom  they 
are  expressed;  and  the  author  in  many  places  evinces  a know- 
ledge of  the  human  heart."  ( "Eiographica  Dramatica, " vol.  5, 
p.  25) . 

"The  Death  of  Darnley"  by  V/niiam  Sotheby  (1814)  is  pub- 
lished in  a collection  entitled  "Five  Tragedies"  (Murray,  Lon- 
don, 1814 ) . 


% 

. 

• 

. 


49 


novelist,  however,  is  not  so  much  interested  as  is  the  dram- 
atist in  showing  Mary’s  tragic  guilt.  He  is  more  absorbed  in 
the  conflict  between  Catholicism  and  Protestantism  in  these 
disturbed,  eventful  times  and  is  intent  on  illuminating  nat- 
ional history  to  show  how  broad  political  movements,  such  as 
the  growth  of  Presbyterianism,  have  influenced  human  character* 

In  consequence  he  selects  Roland  Graeme  and  Catherine 
Seyton  as  convenient  figures  for  the  cetnral  love  story  and  in- 
volves them  in  the  religious  strife,  seen  in  the  election  of 
the  new  abbot,  and  in  the  struggle  of  political  factions.  Prot- 
estantism is  respected  as  a great  historical  force.  Its 
representative,  Murray,  thus  cannot  be  the  monster  of  hatred 
pictured  by  Spiesz,  and  Scott  draws  him  a man  in  whom  evil 
constantly  strives  with  good.  Selfish  ambition  guides  him, 
but  he  i 8 not  insensible  to  feelings  of  pity  for  his  sister. 

In  the  depiction  of  Mary’s  character  Scott  follows 

Schiller  in  creating  a woman  with  many  noble  qualities,  kept 

from  happiness  by  numerous  imperfections.  He  does  not  commit 

himself  on  the  question  of  her  knowledge  of  Bothwell’s  deed 

(1) 

at  Kirk  o’ Field,  and  the  novel  leaves  with  the  reader  a 
deep  interest  in  Mary  and  sympathy  for  her  lot  rather  than  a 
firm  belief  in  her  innocence.  She  follows  the  dubious  dip- 
lomacy of  the  house  of  Guise;  she  delights  in  taunting  the 
aged  Lady  Douglas  and  in  using  her  royal  prerogative  to  in- 

1.-  When  Graeme  arrives  outside  Edinburgh  he  asks  the  old 
falconer  who  accompanies  him  concerning  the  ruins  of  Kirk 
o’  Field.  His  guide  replies:  "Ask  no  more  about  it.  Some- 

body got  foul  play,  and  somebody  got  the  blame  of  it,  and 
the  game  began  thare  that  perhaps  will  not  be  played  out  in  our 
time. M 


f 

. 


■ 


** 


* 


50 


suit  the  older  woman;  she  would  readily  enter  a love  intrigue 
with  Roland  Graeme  or  George  Douglas  if  ambition  did  not  re- 
strain her;  she  "becomes  temporarily  insane  under  the  stress 
of  violent  emotion.  Rut  for  the  most  part  she  is  a calm,  dig- 
nified queen,  bearing  with  composure  the  slights  which  Ruthven 
puts  upon  her.  In  her  relations  with  her  attendants  she  is  a 
kind,  gentle  mistress,  with  a winning  charm  of  manner  and  sin- 
cere regard  for  their  welfare.  She  is  a devout  Catholic,  but 
she  is  never  blatant  about  her  faith,  as  is  the  Mary  of  Eanks 
and  of  Jesuit  drama.  She  is  mildly  surprised  that  any  one 
should  try  to  convert  her  to  Protestantism. 

Import ance  _of  .Schiller  J%,nA  Scott  in  the  Ma.ry.  Stuart  .Tradition 
It  is  because  they  recognize  the  duality  in  Mary's 
nature  that  Schiller's  "Maria  Stuart"  and  Scott’s  "The  Abbot" 
come  closer  to  the  heart  of  the  Mary  Stuart  problem  than  any 
novels  or  dramas  written  before  them.  No  other  works  had 
essayed,  or  so  successfully  achieved,  a harmony  between  the 
various  aspects  of  her  career.  Whenever  religious  and  politic- 
al conditions  had  been  discarded,  historical  truth  had  been 
so  twisted  that  Mary  appeared  either  a soulless  harlot  or  a 
patient,  cruelly  maligned  woman.  Scott  and  Schiller,  on  the 
other  hand,  depicted  her  as  a woman  with  both  harlot  and  saint 
in  her  nature,  a woman  neither  to  be  condemned  nor  canonized, 
a woman  who  exemplified  a noble  spirit  brought  low  by  human 
frailty.  They  did  not  neglect  the  important  movements  of  the 
time  but  subordinated  them  as  environmental  influences  upon 
Mary’ 8 life.  In  each  case  the  story  is  told  not  for  its  own 


. 


' 


51 

sake,  although  it  is  interesting  as  a narrative,  hut  for  its 
value  as  a document  of  human  passions. 


, 


I j 


III.  MARY  STUART  IN  NINETEENTH  CENTURY  LITERATURE 


Minor  Sent  imental  JT  r eat  tpent  s of  Mary  Stuart 
The  interpretation  of  Mary  Queen  of  Scots  as  Loth 
woman  and  queen  presented  by  "Maria  Stuart"  and  "The  Abbot" 
was  the  one  that  continued  popular  during  the  first  half 
of  the  nineteenth  century.  The  dominant  literary  temper 
of  the  period  was  sentimentalism.  Writers  were  still  turning 
to  the  lives  of  historical  personages  for  colorful  settings, 
and  in  Mary’s  fate  they  saw  an  opportunity  for  picturesque, 
romantic  description  and  a wealth  of  stirring  episode.  In 
general  they  were  indifferent  to  the  problem  which  Schiller 
saw  as  the  most  insoluble  one  in  the  situation  - namely,  that 
of  making  Mary  the  cause  of  her  downfall.  Their  main  in- 
tent was  to  write  ent ert ai  ningly  rather  than  to  illuminate 
history  or  to  point  a moral.  Their  work  is  often  hasty, 
showing  only  superficial  study  of  the  original  story,  but 
there  is  often  in  theee  novels  and  plays  that  use  Mary  Stuart’s 
fortunes  as  interesting  narrative  material^)  a vigorous, 


1.-  Schiller’s  "Maria  Stuart"  was  adapted  to  the  English  stage 
and  was  acted  at  Covent  Garden  under  the  title  of  "Mary  Stuart, 
Queen  of  Scots,"  on  December  14,  1819.  Kemble  and  Macready 
were  in  the  cast.  Genest  (vol.  9,  pp.  49-51)  says  that  the 
communion  scene  had  been  altered  to  please  English  audiences, 
that  the  play  was  dull,  uninteresting,  often  absurd,  and  that 
it  was  on  the  whole  well  written. 

In  June  of  the  next  year  (June  17,  1820)  "David  Rizzio, 
a Serious  Opera  in  Three  Acts,  founded  upon  Scottish  history" 
was  performed.  This  play  by  Colonel  Ralph  Hamilton  follows 
history  as  recounted  by  William  Robertson.  It  tells  of  the 
love  of  Rizzio  for  Mary  Livingstone.  Mary  Stuart  is  guiltless 
of  unlawful  ties  with  him,  but  her  dependence  on  his  advice 
incites  Darnley’s  suspicions.  At  the  time  of  the  murder  Mary 
Livingstone  avows  herself  Rizzio’ s wife.  Darnlfcy  repents  his 
jealousy  but  he  cannot  recall  the  order  which  he  has  given  to 
Ruthven.  "Although  this  is  a serious  Opera. .. .there  are  some 
comic  scenes.  The  serious  scenes  are  injudiciously  written 
in  blank  verse."  (Genest,  vol.  1,  p.  520;  p.  559). 


55 


logical  portrayal  of  character  and  considerable  skill  in  ar- 
ranging incidents.  They  are  not  enduring  literature  because 


An  Italian  drama  dealing  with  Mary  Stuart’s  execution  ap- 
peared about  this  year,  In  the  "Aligemeines  Theater  Lexikon, " 
Altenburg  and  Leipzig,  1845,  vol.  5,  p.  310  this  play,  "Morte 
di  Maria  Stuarda"  by  Mariano  Caracciolo  is  listed  as  one  of 
the  most  noteworthy  Italian  tragedies  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury . 

A drama  by  Elizabeth  Wright  Macauley  entitled  "Mary  Stuart, 
a Dramatic  Representation"  appeared  in  1823  (Sherword,  London). 

"Mary,  Queen  of  Scots;  or,  The  Esca.pe  from  Loch  Lever.,  " 
by  William  Murray,  was  first  performed  at  the  Edinburgh  Theatre 
on  October  3,  1825.  It  follows  "The  Abbot"  in  its  description 
of  Mary’s  escape.  It  is  published  as  no.  408  in  "Licks’ 
Standard  Plays,  " John  Licks,  London. 

An  adaptation  of  ‘The  Abbot"  under  the  title  "Know  Your 
Own  Mind,  " was  presented  at  the  Lath  Theatre  January  13,  1827 
with  Miss  Jarman  as  Mary  Stuart.  She  had  previously  played 
the  role  for  more  than  fifty  nights  in  Lublin.  The  dramat- 
ization was  poor,  and  there  was  but  one  spirited  scene  - 
that  in  which  Mary  signed  her  consent  to  resign  the  throne 
(Genest,  vcl.  9,  pp.  400-01). 

"Southennan"  (1830)  by  John  Galt  unfortunately  challenges 
comparison  with  Scott.  Its  author  is  one  of  the  journalists 
who  aided  in  the  intense  waver  of  national  feeling  that  swept 
Scotland  during  the  latter  half  of  the  century.  There  is 
evident  a patriotic  desire  to  praise  everything  Scotch.  The 
work  has  a wide  and  penetrating  observation,  gentle  humor, 
pathos,  and  an  admirable  skill  in  drawing  homely  Scotch  char- 
acter. Galt  is  lost,  however,  when  he  steps  beyond  his  locale. 
Eis  picture  of  sovereignty  is  especially  feeble  by  the  side 
of  Scott,  who  excelled  in  describing  important  historical  per- 
sonages. ( For  an  appreciation  of  Galt  see  Gordon,  R.  K.  "John 
Galt,"  University  of  Toronto  Studies,  Philological  Series, 
no . 5)  . 


Mary  Russell  Mit ford's  "Mary  Queen  of  Scots"  (l83l)  appears 
in  her  "Lramatic  Scenes  and  Other  poems. " tfaitt aker , London) . 

Three  years  later  (1634)  an  opera  entitled  "Maria  Stuarda" 
by  Gaetano  Lonizetti  was  produced  at  the  San  Carlo  Theater  in 
Naples.  It  was  played  in  Milan  and  Rome  in  1835  as  “Giovanna 
Gray"  and  "II  Euondelmont e " and  was  given  in  Florence  the  next 
year  under  its  original  title. 


. 


- 


- 


. 


54 


they  skirt  the  edges  of  the  problem;  they  are  content  to  peer 
into  one  crisis  in  Mary’s  career  without  seeking  an  imaginative 


"Lord.  Barnley:  Or  The  Keep  of  Castle  Hill,  An  Original 

Romantic  Brama,  in  2 Acts”  by  Thomas  E^erton  Wilks  (1657) 
deals  with  a hunting  adventure  of  the  husband  of  Mary  Stuart 
but  is  without  reference  to  her.  It  appears  as  no.  715  in 
"Ricks"  Standard  Plays." 

James  Haynes  is  the  author  of  "Mary  Stuart;  An  Historical 
Tragedy,  in  five  Acts,"  which  was  first  produced  a.t  Rrury  Lane 
on  January  22,  1840  with  Macreedy  in  the  cast.  The  subject  is 
the  murder  of  Rizzio.  (No.  749  in  "Ricks’  Standard  Plays.") 

"The  Spae  Wife:  or,  The  Queen’s  Secret"  (1855)  by  Rev. 

John  Boyce  (pseud.  Paul  Feppergrass)  presents  Elizabeth’s 
persecution  of  an  old  Jesuit  landowner  and  his  daughter.  The 
two  finally  escape  from  her  malice  by  the  aid  of  the  Scotch 
spae  wife,  who  has  devoted  her  life  to  the  task  of  rescuing 
Mary.  The  spae  wife  has  attended  Elizabeth  during  the  birth 
of  a son  to  Leicester,  a.nd  she  holds  her  knowledge  as  a threat 
over  the  queen.  The  picture  of  Elizabeth  is  far  from  a pleas- 
ant on5 . 

James  Grant’s  novel,  "Bothwell,  " wa6  published  in  1854.  It 
"opens  in  Norway,  where  he  (Bothwell)  is  an  ambassador  to  the 
Ranish  king,  with  scenes  of  shipwreck  and  peril.  Lady  Both- 
well’s  piteous  tragedy,  the  murder  of  Barnley,  Bothwell’s  amour 
and  marriage  with  Mary,  hie  miserable  end  as  a captive  in 
Malm#"  are  described.  (Eaker,  E.  A.  "Guide  to  the  Best  Fic- 
tion, " p.  74).  Kaye  ("Historical  Fiction,"  p.  270)  says  that 
"for  fertility  of  incident,  rapid  change  of  scene,  and  skilful 
intermingling  of  historical  with  imaginary  people  and  events. 
Bothwell  is  not  surpassed  by  any  of  the  romances  that  came  from 
its  author's  fertile  pen."  The  novel  is  a dexterous  blend  of 
romance  and  history,  vivaciously  presented  in  the  romanticist  ( 
manner  of  Bumas.  (Saturday  Review,  vol.  55,  1887,  pp.  690-91). 

Julius  Bernme  ’ s "Marie  Stuart,  oder:  Rie  Reformation  in 

Schottlend.  Brama  in  fiJfnf  Akten."  (i860)  is  a drarnia  which, 
according  to  Kipka  (p.  562)  is  crowded  with  dry  theological 
ai9putatione. 

"The  Queen’s  Maries"  (1862)  by  George  James  V/hyte  Melville, 
presents  the  love  affairs  of  Mary’s  waiting  maids.  Mary  Hamil- 
ton is  shown  as  the  queen’s  rival  in  Chastelard’s  affections. 
Mary  Carmichael  is  the  sole  one  of  the  five  whose  romance  ends 
happily.  None  of  the  characters  is  vividly  imagined,  and  there 
is  no  illusion  of  reality.  Bothwell  is  described  as  a man  in- 
tensely loyal  bu  nature  but  who  becomes  permanently  embittered 
when  Mary  orders  his  imprisonment. 


grasp  of  her  life  as  a whole.  In  them  Mary  is  usually  a passive 
figure,  caist rained  to  action  by  the  necessities  of  the  narr- 


Three  years  later  there  was  published  in  Berlin  "Maria 
Stuart  " by  Eugen  H.  von  Dedenroth,  a novel  in  which  there  has 
"been  an  unsuccessful  attempt  to  follow  Schiller. 

Ludvig  Schneegans  in  1858  produced  his  "Maria,  Ktfnigin  von 
Schottland"  at  the  Hoflheater  in  Munich.  Grillparzer,  speaking 
of  it  in  his  reminiscences,  characterizes  it  as  dramat ically 
skilful  hut  somewhat  uninspired  in  its  delineation  of  historical 
persons.  f'Errinnerung en  an  Franz  Grilipart zer . " Konegen,  Wien, 
1901,  p.  85). 

"Anthony  Bahingto n.  A Drama"  (l8?0)  hy  Violet  Fane,  deals 
with  the  Catholic  conspiracy  to  murder  Elizabeth  and  rescue 
Mary.  Batingtan,  the  leader  of  the  six  conspirators,  joins  the 
plot  because  of  his  love  for  Mary.  (Chapman  and  Hall,  London, 
1876) . 

In  1884  M.  Quinn  published  "Mary  Queen  of  Scots.  A Tragedy 
in  Three  Acts."  ( Washbourne , London). 

The  following  year  saw  the  publication  by  Major-C-eneral  John 
Watte  de  Peyster  of  "Bothwell:  an  Higtorical  Drama."  (Hew 

York,  1885). 

Rev.  Edward  Bradley  (pseud.  Cuthbert  Bede)  is  the  author  of 
"Fotherir^ay  and  Mary  Queen  of  Scots,"  published  in  1888  (Simp- 
kin,  Marshall  and  Company,  London). 

Lord  Ernest  William  Hamilton's  'The  Outlaws  of  the  Marches" 
(1897)  makes  no  mention  of  Mary  Stuart’s  fate  beyond  showing 
the  bold,  lawless,  border-raiding  sjirit  of  the  times.  The 
story  opens  in  1587,  the  year  of  her  execution,  and  is  laid  in 
the  Borderland  between  England  and  Scotland.  Bothwell' s son  by 
hi 8 marriage  to  Lady  Jean  Gordon  is  the  benefactor  of  the  hero. 
The  original  James  Hepburn  is  mentioned  with  loathing,  although 
every  one  accredits  to  him  a.  remarkable  charm  of  manner  and 
attractiveness  of  personality. 

"Riccio,  " an  historical  tragedy  by  David  Graham  (1898) 
reverts  to  the  "Riccius"  of  Karl  Kolczawa  in  making  Riccio  share 
in  Mary’ 8 martyrdom  because  of  his  religious  convictions. 

Frank  Mathew  is  the  author  of  the  novel  "One  Queen  Triumph- 
ant " (Lane,  London,  1899)  which  deals  with  the  end  of  the  long 
rivalry  between  Elizabeth  and  Mary. 


- 

- 


. 


' 


. 


55 


ative.  Whenever  her  guilt  iss  acknowledged  in  these  works  it 
is  attributed  to  a passionate  nature,  an  unfortunate  early 
training,  or  the  force  of  circumstance.  There  is  little  ev- 
idence of  a desire  to  define  the  relati  on  b et  ween  her  char- 
acter and  her  environment  or  t o hold  her  morally  responsible 
for  her  death.  Fate  is  regarded  ss  blind,  illogical,  arbit- 
rary, bringing  her  added  suffering  by  its  sudden  reversals 
of  situation.  Not  all  of  these  novels  and  plays  regard  her 
favorably,  certain  of  them  portraying  her  the  wicked  enemy 
of  the  gloiioue  Elizabeth,  but  they  also  lack  distinction 
because  of  their  sentimental  conception  of  character  and  their 
disregard  of  the  deeper  values  of  the  story. 

In  their  choice  of  materials  nineteenth  century 
novelists  and  dramatists  hesitated,  for  the  most  part,  to 
challenge  comparison  with  Scott  and  Schiller.  Whenever  they 
do  treat  the  Lochleven  period  and  the  final  catastrophe  they 
pass  over  them  briefly  or  with  a new  interpretation  of  the 
events.  Instead  they  devote  their  attention  to  Mary’s  years 
in  France  or  to  the  confused,  perplexing  period  between  the 
establishment  of  the  court  at  Holyrood  and  the  surrender  to 
Murray.  Incidents  are  invented  to  motivate  more  adequately 
her  actions,  when,  for  example,  the  discovery  in  "Mary  Hamil- 
ton” of  Darnley’s  liaison  with  the  lady-in-wait irg  is  respons- 
ible for  Mary  Stuart's  hatred  for  her  husband,  or  when,  in 
"The  Master  of  Grey,"  the  treason  of  the  earl  is  attributed 
to  his  hopeless  love  for  his  queen. 

Other  characters  of  less  historical  importance  come 


. 

« 

- 

* 

. 

, 


57 


into  prominence  in  these  accounts  - Darnley,  Eothwell,  Riccio, 
one  of  the  Marys,  a court  follower,  or,  frequently  an  unacknow- 
ledged daughter  of  Mary.  They  are  subjected  to  a series  of  in- 
cidents which  have  no  relation  to  the  original  story  hut  which 
are  offered  to  explain  the  i nconei st enci es  in  the  queen’s  con- 
duct • 

Typical  of  the  development  of  the  Mary  Stuart  theme 
in  these  novels  and  plays  are  "Unknown  to  History"  by  Charlotte 
M.  Yonge,  ‘T'he  Two  Dianas"  by  Alexandre  Dumas,  and  "Mary  Ham- 
ilton" by  Lord  E.  \7.  Hamilton.  The  first  claims  to  "reveal" 
history  in  explaining  for  the  first  time  a note  in  Chaetelnau’s 
diary  to  the  effect  that  &ary  gave  birth  to  a daughter  in  Loch- 
leven.  Miss  Yonge  describes  the  touching  reunion  of  this 
child  with  Mary  and  their  happiness  together  until  the  queen’s 
execution.  The  account  is  quiet  and  unpretentious,  delighting 
in  descriptions  of  contemporary  manners  and  dwelling  with 
fonanese  on  Mary’s  maternal  love.  The  captive  herself  is 
summarily  excused  from  sin  by  her  pride  and  her  French  light- 
heartedness. She  has  thought  no  evil;  therefore,  she  has 
wrought  none. 

"The  Two  Dianas"  is  true  to  Dumas’  habit  of  motiv- 
ating history  by  love,  adventure,  and  court  intrigue.  The 
scene  is  laid  in  France  under  Henri  II,  with  the  Comte  de  Mont- 
gomery as  hero  and  the  daughter  of  Diane  de  Poitiers  the  heroine 
Mary  Stuart  appears  a serene  happy  princess,  nai've  in  her  mis- 
understanding of  the  real  problems  of  government  but  admirably 


. 

* 

* 

- 

. 

58 


fulfilling  the  requirement  that  a princess  be  lovely  and  grac- 
ious . ^ 1 ^ 

"Mary  Hamilton”  is  "based  upon  a sixteenth  century 

(2) 

ballad  which  brands  Mary’s  attendants  as  unchaste  as  she. 
Mary  Hamilton  has  been  secretly  carried  to  Barnley,  who  in  his 
ambition  has  then  contracted  a state  marriage  with  the  queen. 
The  story  revolves  upon  the  effort  of  both  women  to  win  the 
love  of  this  philandering  young  prince,  an  effort  that  sends 
Mary  Ha,  milt  an  to  the  scaffold  and  Mary  Stuart  to  the  arms  of 
Bothwell.  The  author  shows  an  inability  to  fasten  blame  for 
the  bigamous  relationship  upon  either  Barnley  or  his  two  wives. 
All  are  good  at  heart , and  all  are  stricken  with  remorse  when 
they  realize  that  unconsciously  their  lower  nature  has  led  them 
astray . 

These  three  novels  in  their  placid  tenor  and  optim- 
istic faith  in  human  nature  are  typical  of  the  great  number  of 
treatments  of  Mary  during  the  nineteenth  century.  They  have 
warmth  and  color,  they  are  written  with  facile  craftsmanship, 
but  they  lack  profundity.  They  present  situations  which  are 
interesting  and  episodes  that  will  entertain  or  perhaps  in- 
struct. An  earlier  period  is  described,  but  the  description 
does  not  show,  as  does  'fThe  Abbot”  an  anxiety  to  recreate  a 
preceding  epoch  to  see  what  lessons  there  are  in  men’s  failure 

1. -  Dumas  is  not  so  charitable  in  his  "Life  of  Mary  Stuart, 
Queen  of  Scots, " a brief  historical  account  of  her  career 
interspersed  with  scenes  of  passion  and  adventure,  much  in 
the  style  of  Mrs.  Haywood’s  secret  history.  It  admits  Mary’s 
crime  and  makes  no  effort  to  excuse  it. 

2. -  Strickland,  Agnes.  "Lives  of  the  Queens  of  Scotland.” 
Harpers,  Hew  York,  1854,  vol.  4,  p.  11. 


. 


.* 

' 

• 

, 


59 


to  adjust  themselves  to  that  epoch  or  in  their  success  in  do- 
ing so.  There  is  little  effort  to  show  character  a product 
of  innate  capacities  and  environmental  forces  or  as  an  in- 
separable mixture  of  good  and  evil. 

Hew  Tendencies  in  the  Victorian  Age 
The  novels  and  plays  produced  after  1850  with  this 
romantic  point  of  view  made  no  permanent  impression  on  the 
Mary  Stuart  tradition,  because  in  their  attitude  toward  life 
they  were  going  counter  to  the  main  literary  current  of  the 
time.  The  political  and  social  unrest  in  England  which  found 
expression  in  the  Parliamentary  reform  fill  of  1852  and  factory 
legislation  was  reflected  in  literature  by  the  substitution 
of  realism  for  sentimert  all  sm.  There  was  an  increasingly 
strong  tendency  to  sweep  away  error,  corwenticnal  restraints 
of  every  sort,  in  order  to  reveal  the  underlying  truth  of 
human  life.  Writers  like  Dickens,  Thackeray,  and  George  Eliot 
were  winning  adherents  in  their  effort  to  ridicule  men’s 
foibles,  to  uncover  moral  disease,  and  to  rid  society  of  its 
malformations.  The  problem  of  evil,  which  sentimentalism  had 
avoided  by  ignoring  its  existence,  became  a vital  one.  Dis- 
coveries in  science,  especially  new  theories  about  man’s 
origin,  brought  about  the  dissolution  of  old  beliefs  without 
suggesting  in  their  place  a reasonable  interpretation  of  the 
meaning  of  life.  Writers  with  the  sceptical  attitude  result- 
ing from  this  lack  of  new  standards  took  sharp  issue  with  the 
idealization  of  human  character  which  sentimentalism  had  so 


60 


energetically  presented.  They  began  to  subject  human  char- 
acter to  keen  scrutiny  to  determine  the  freedom  of  the  will 
and  the  relation  between  man’s  physical  nature  and  his  en- 
vironment . 

In  Mary  Stuart  literature  the  searching  psychol- 
ogical analyses  of  the  springs  of  human  action  produces  a type 
of  novel  and  drama  that  swings  to  the  ext  rerue  of  pessimism 
ae  the  works  of  the  first  part  of  the  century  swung  to  the 
extreme  of  optimism.  The  first  evidence  of  a new  spirit  is 
the  “Maria  Stuart  I Skotland  of  E j tfrnst  j erne  Ejdfrnson,  a 
vigorous  play  with  brilliant  dialogue  and  striking  act  clim- 
axes . 

Although  Ejtfrnson  places  his  scenes  on  Scottish 
soil  and  gives  his  characters  Scottish  names,  they  have  a 
boldnese,  a force,  an  epic  largeness  that  one  associates 
with  the  Norse  sagas.  Mary  in  particular  has  a terrific 
strength.  Externally  her  nature  appears  calm,  quiet, 
lovely  - “gleaming  like  a diamond  and  cold  like  a diamond." 

Care  and  hate  are  foreign  to  her,  and  passion  has  never 

touched  her.  She  lias  not  sinned  with  Riccio  or  with  Bothwell. 
There  at  first  seems  no  possibility  of  rousing  her,  when 
even  the  sight  of  Riccio’s  murder  provokes  no  more  personal 

response  than  the  thought  that  it  is  noble  to  face  death 

f earl  ess ly. 

Within  Mary,  however,  there  are  horrible  depths  of 
passion  and  lawlessness,  depths  of  which  she  is  utterly  un- 
aware. It  is  the  dictates  of  this  violent  part  of  her  nature 
that  she  follows  blindly,  thinking  in  her  ignorance  that  fate 


- • 

. 


. 


' 

- 


. 


. 


. 


. 


61 

opposes  her  and  that  her  surroundings  are  forcing  her  to  des- 
truction. She  can  turn  to  no  one  to  solve  the  riddle  of  her 
character;  Darnley  is  an  ambitious  tyrant,  Murray  is  openly 
a rebel,  and  the  officers  of  her  government  are  in  league 
against  her.  In  desperation,  forsaken  by  man  and  deserted  by 
her  God,  she  yields  herself  to  Bothwell. 

Bjtfrneon’s  analysis  of  Mary  leads  him  to  a novel 
manner  of  exposition.  Each  step  in  the  action  is  an  exper- 
iment undertaken  by  one  character,  like  a psychologist,  to 
draw  a certain  response  from  another  charact er . ^ ^ The  mur- 
der of  Riccio  is  an  instance  of  this  experimentation.  Parnley 
is  not  convinced  that  he  can  thus  regain  Mary’s  affection, 
but  he  believes  that  she  may  be  won  back  by  fear  when  he  has 
failed  to  win  ber  back  by  love. 

Swinburne’s  Psvcholcg  ical  Analysis 
The  force  of  Bj <J?rn9on’ s Mary  as  a tragic  heroine 
is  lessened  by  the  fact  that  to  the  end  of  the  play  she  re- 
mains in  ignorance  of  the  real  cause  of  her  ruin.  She  blames 
fate  for  its  part  in  her  downfall,  while  in  reality  it  is  the 
springs  of  passion  within  her  that  impel  her  to  sin.  From 
the  beginning  her  doom  is  sealed.  The  blind  slave  of  physical 
forces  which  she  does  not  recognize,  or  which,  when  she  feels, 
she  does  not  understand,  she  struggles  on  through  the  dark, 

1.-  This  method  of  composition  allows  no  dramatic  climax.  The 
play  closes  with  the  dethronement  of  Mary  and  the  proclamat ion 
of  popular  sovereignty  under  John  Knox.  The  Presbyterian 
faith  is  triumphant  and  Knox  asserts  that 
MMvil  shall  be  routed 
And  weakness  shall  follow 
The  might  of  truth  shall  pierce 
To  the  last  retreat  of  doom.” 


52 


troublous  days  of  her  reign  until  the  barriers  which  she  has 
been  raising  against  her  happiness  become  too  firm  for  her  to 
oppose. 

Swinburne  in  his  trilogy  - "Chast elard,"  (1656), 
"Bothwell,"  (1874)  ’’Mary  Stuart,"  (1981)  - does  not  repeat 
Bjdfrnson's  mistake  in  leaving  his  heroine  without  a conscious- 
ness of  her  guilt  or  the  forces  of  her  own  nature.  He  has 
examined  the  evidence  against  Mary  Stuart  in  Buchanan,  Robert- 
son, and  Knox  and  has  found  only  one  possible  interpretation 
of  her  conduct:  "she  hated  Barnley  with  a passionate  but 

justifiable  hatred  and  loved  Bothwell  with  a passionate  but 
pardonable  love.  For  the  rest  of  her  career,  I cannot  but 
think,"  he  says,  "whatever  was  evil  and  ignoble  in  it  was  the 
work  of  education  or  of  circumstances;  whatever  was  good 
and  noble,  the  gift  of  nature  or  of  God. 

In  his  drama , however,  he  could  not  show  Mary  in- 
fluenced to  her  destruction  by  her  early  training  or  her 
evil  surroundings.  She  must,  as  in  Schiller's  "Maria  Stuart,” 
be  an  active  agent  in  the  tragedy  which  destroys  her.  He  makes 

her  then  a vicious,  fascinating  woman,  like  the  Lilith  of 

( o ) 

Bant e Gabriel  Rosetti.  "A  Venus  Crowned  who  eats  the 

1 .  - Swinburne,  Algernon  Charles.  "Note  on  the  Character  of 
Ma by  Queen  of  Scots."  Fortnightly  Review,  vol.  £7,  1862,  p. 

25. 

2. -  Swinburne's  description  of  Lilith  ("Essays  and  Studies," 

4th  edition,  London,  1897,  p.  375  ff.)  all  is  applicable  to 
Mary:  "Of  evil  desire  or  evil  repute  she  has  nothing  and  noth- 

ing of  good.  Bhe  is  indifferent,  equable .magnet ic ; she  charms 
and  draws  down  the  souls  of  men  by  pure  force  of  attraction,  in 
no  wise  wailful  or  malignant  ; outside  herself  she  cannot  live, 
she  cannot  even  see;  and  because  of  this  she  attracts  and 
subdues  all  men  at  once  in  body  and  in  spirit." 


63 


hearts  of  Men”  Chastelard  calls  her: 

"For  all  Christ’s  work  this  Venus  is  not  quelled, 

Eut  reddens  at  the  mouth  with  blood  of  men. 

Sucking  between  smell  teeth  the  sap  o’ the  veins, 

Labbling  with  death  her  little  tender  lips  - 
A bitter  beauty,  poisonoue-parlfcd  mouth. 

I shall  escape  you  somehow  with  my  death." 

Love  she  recognizes  as  a blind,  venomous,  over- 
powering insanity,  bitter-sweet,  cloying  and  acid,  destroying 
all  the  tendernees  in  a woman.  Knowing  what  havoc  it  will 
bring,  her,  yet  she  chooses  it,  preferring  to  spend  one  month 
in  glorious  abandon  than  to  live  through  a score  of  drab, 
well-ordered  years.  Men  are  toys  to  her,  and  she  delights 
in  driving  them  to  madness.  She  is  not  offended  by  Chastelard’s 
intrusion  into  her  apartment,  for  it  gratifies  her  to  know 
her  power  over  him.  *^his  suicidal  young  monomaniac"  has  an 
unusual  fire  and  vigor,  qualities  that  attract  her.  He  is, 
like  her,  an  epicure  in  sensations,  deliberately  cultivating 
hie  mad  infatuation  for  her  because  he  is  conscious  that  in 
his  absorption  lies  the  greatest  peace  he  can  ever  find. 

The  man  who  can  hold  Mary  must  be  her  master,  how. 
ever,  and  when  Chastelard  becomes  her  slave  she  tires  of  him. 

He  seems  resolved  on  blazoning  their  relation  through  France 
and  Scotland,  and  she  is  glad  that  she  can  discard  him  before 
her  reputation  is  tarnished.  Never  intending  to  grant  him 
official  pardon,  she  goes  to  his  prison  cell  to  caress  him, 
luxuriating  in  the  sensation  of  having  a strorg  man  ready  to 
die  for  love  of  her.  With  a callousness  that  shocks  even  the 
hardened  Murray,  who  refuses  to  dip  his  hands  in  her  sin,  she 


54 


turns  to  Bothwell  and  goes  with  her  new  lover  to  witness  the 
execution  of  the  old, 

A morbid  craving  for  sensual  pleasure  attends  her 
passage  through  the  years,  as  she  goes  from  one  love  to  an- 
other, feeling  that  life  is  short  and  beauty  fleeting.  As 
the  inevitable  of  her  animal  lusts  her  sense  of  venues  be- 
comes dulled;  she  can  no  longer  indulge  in  the  piercing 
self-analysis  of  "Chast elard . " Passion  coarsens  her  and 
she  appears  an  embittered  woman,  linked  in  marriage  with  a 
man  whom  she  hates,  and  doomed  never  to  find  a nature  more 
masterful  than  hers.  "Men  must  love  you  in  love's  spite," 
Chast elard  has  told  her 

"For  you  will  always  kill;  man  by  man 

Your  lips  will  bite  them  dead;  yea,  though  you  would 
You  shall  not  spare  one;  all  will  die  of  you." 

Mary  has  chosen  her  c curse  in  life  deliberately 
and  she  never  regrets  her  decision.  Resolute,  etill  defiant 
after  twenty  years  in  English  prisons,  she  hails  death  gladly: 
"Mary  has  lived  out  her  passion  and  her  hate."  When  life  has 
no  more  zest,  variety,  storm  and  stress  of  emotion,  she  is 
willing  that  the  sentence  of  the  court  be  administered.  She 
does  seek  to  regain  in  ecstatic  piety  the  enthusiasm  and 
vigor  of  her  early  years,  but  she  is  too  unwilling  to  relin- 
quish earthly  pleasures  to  become  a religious  zealot. 

But  Mary  cannot  escape  fate: 

^The  bitter  tongue  through  bitter  speech  shall  rue, 

Let  bloody  stroke  for  bloody  stroke  be  law, 

The  doer  must  suffer.  'Tis  the  world-old  saw." 


. 


65 


Through  all  these  years  there  has  been  beside  Mary  one  woman 
who  typifies  the  spirit  of  justice.  The  unhappy  Mary  Beaton, 
who  loved  Chastelard  devotedly,  pledges  herself  at  his  exec- 
ution to  bring  the  same  fate  to  Mary.  "I  will  never  leave  you 
till  you  die,”  she  assures  the  frightened  queen  on  their  flight 
to  England,  and  the  words  have  a meaning  that  Mary  does  not 
understand.  Mary  Beaton,  however,  is  not  a silent  avenger, 
standing  beside  her  mistress  and  ready  to  bring  her  to  des- 
truction. She  serves  Mary  faithfully  and  well  during  the  tem- 
pestuous days  after  Darnley’s  murder,  and  shares  the  long  im- 
prisonment in  England.  It  is  her  duty  to  perform  these  ser- 
vices, and  she  performs  them  c onscientiously,  although  she  re- 
gards with  contempt  the  queen’s  weakness. 

The  climax  of  the  trilogy  is  a short  scene  in  wMary 
Stuart”  where  the  queen  asks  Mary  Beaton  to  enliven  their 
dreary  day  with  a song.  The  maid  sings  an  old  song  of  Chas- 
telard’s,  but  the  queen  has  completely  forgotten  it.  Mary 
Beaton  has  hesitated  to  use  against  Mary  the  letter  which  the 
angry  captive  addressed,  but  never  sent,  to  Elizabeth,  taunt- 
ing her  with  her  bastard  birth.  Mary  Beaton  has  retained  the 
letter,  determined  to  use  it  unless  the  queen  shows  some  sign 
of  pity  and  remorse  for  Chastelard.  She  sees  now  that  what 
has  been  the  great  tragedy  of  her  life  is  merely  a minor  ep- 
isode in  the  queen’s  past.  She  forwards  the  letter  to  White- 
hall, where  it  hastens  the  signing  of  the  warrant.  Then,  her 
mission  performed,  she  can  retire  to  France  to  mourn  her  lover. 

The  suggestion  that  the  death  of  Chastelard  and  the 


* 


n 

, . 


. 


< 


- 

* 


, 


, 


53 


memory  of  Mary  Beaton  Bring  Mary  to  the  Block  is  poetic  and 
juBt . It  unifies  and  completes  the  trilogy,  which  otherwise 
would  Be  the  picture  of  a passionate  woman  Brought  to  death 
accidentally  rather  than  inevitably  as  the  result  of  her  crime. 
In  this  unity  the  three  plays  make  a powerful  study  of  human 
passions,  laid  Bare  and  analyzed  with  the  skill  of  the  scient- 
ist. The  character  drawing  is  within  narrow  lines,  But  within 
its  limits  it  is  accurate  and  vivid. 

The  chief  danger  in  Swinburne’s  depiction  of  Mary  as 
the  personification  of  cruelty  and  lust  is  that  the  plays  will 
Be  little  more  than  sordid,  revolting  accounts  of  her  amours. 

To  a certain  extent  this  danger  is  not  avoided.  There  are  pre- 
sented few  noble  traits  of  character,  for  Mary  is  no  worse 
than  her  corrupt  court.  Scotland  is  a land  of  wild  godless 
men;  Darnley  is  a despicable  craven,  who  requites  his  wife 
for  her  infidelity  By  his  intrigue  with  Mary  Hamilton;  Both- 
well  is  a Brutal  libertine;  Chastelard  hovers  on  the  Brink  of 
insanity.  The  sight  , in  addition,  of  Mary  Beaton  watching 
down  the  years  for  a change  to  avenge  her  lover’s  death  is  re- 
pugnant. Swinburne  casts  over  his  dark  scene  a graphic  imagery 
and  a haunt ing  melody  of  verse,  But  even  poetical  Beauty  can- 
not disguise  the  cynical  interpretation  of  the  principal  fig- 
ures . 

The  picture  which  Bjtfrnson  and  Swinburne  present  is 
as  extreme  as  that  drawn  By  the  sent  iment  ali  st  e . The  treatment 
of  man’s  vices  is  too  stark,  too  unmitigated,  ignoring  the 
praiseworthy  qualities  in  Mary  Stuart  as  unconcernedly  as  the 


- 


, 

* 


. 


' 


■ 


57 


novels  of  the  preceding  period  ignored  the  evil  ones.  A just 
int  erpretat  ion  of  Mary’s  character  should  recognize  both. 

There  must  have  "been  possibilities  for  good  in  her,  for  she 
inspired  a devotion  in  her  attendants  and  leaders  in  Scotland 
that  surpassed  loyalty  or  religious  prejudice.  There  must 
have  been  reprehensible  tendencies  in  her,  for  historians  have 
now  generally  accepted  her  complicity  in  Darnley’s  murder  and 
the  authenticity  of  the  casket  letters.  There  is  no  attempt  in 
Bjtfrnson  and  Swinburne  to  reconcile  these  opposing  forces  with- 
in her,  and  the  value  of  the  psychological  study  is  lessened 
by  the  neglect  of  an  important  part  of  the  problem. 


. 


. 


■ 


IV.  MARY  STUART  IN  TWENTIETH  CENTURY  LITERATURE 


General  Tendencie.s  Tin  Treatments  ,of  Mary  Stuart 
The  cause  of  Mary  Stuart  has  been  ably  presented  dur- 
ing the  last  twenty  years.  In  history  Innes,  Lang,  and  Mumby 
have  examined  state  documents  and  diplomatic  correspondence  and 
drawn  from  them  a tolerant  picture  of  the  young  queen*  In 
novels  built  for  popular  consumption  by  Lee,  .Major,  Pease,  and 
Cullen^)  the  broadly  romantic  aspects  of  her  life  have  been 


1.-  "The  Gentleman  Pensioner:  A Romance  of  the  Year  1539"  by 

Albert  Lee  (1900)  tells  of  "Catholic  plots  to  release  Mary  and 
place  her  on  the  English  throne.  One  of  the  Gentlemen  Pension- 
ers is  entrusted  by  the  Queen  with  important  letters  and  under- 
takes a journey  full  of  peril.  Queen  Mary  was  at  the  time  in 
prison  in  the  charge  of  the  Earl  of  Shrewsbury;  and  Lord  Huns- 
don,  in  command  of  the  troops  in  the  West,  is  instructed  to  re- 
lieve the  Earl  and  take  the  Captive  Queen  to  a place  of  secur- 
ity  Interwoven  with  the  descriptions  of  public  tumult  and 

veiled  conspiracy  is  the  troubled  love-3tory  of  the  Gentleman 
Pensioner."  (Baker,  E.  A.  "A  Guide  to  Historical  Fiction,  " 
p.  48)  . 

"Dorothy  Vernon  of  Haddon  Hall"  ( 1902)  by  Charles  Major, 
(pseud.  Edwin  Cuskoden)  is  a popular  romance  of  the  Roraeo- 
Juliet  love  of  Dorothy  Vernon  for  Sir  John  Manners.  The  narr- 
ator introduces  a love  affair  of  his  own  with  Mary  Queen  of 
Scots  whom  he  paints  as  selfish,  treacherous,  and  frankly  wan- 
ton. Elizabeth  has  much  the  same  character. 

Henry  Christopher  Bailey’s  *The  Master  of  Gray"  (1903) 
takes  the  period  of  Mary’s  captivity  in  England.  Its  cent  ral 
character  is  Patrick  Gray,  a prominent  Scotch  earl  whose  de- 
sertion of  his  queen  is  attributed  to  his  unrequited  love  for 
her.  Except  for  this  variation  the  story  follows  that  out- 
lined in  Miss  Strickland’s  life  of  Mary  Stuart. 

Howard  Pease  in  "With  the  Warden  of  the  Marches:  or,  The 
Vow  by  the  ’Nine  Stane  Rig’"  ( 1909)  tells  in  broad  Scotch  of 
Liddesdale  border  raids  during  the  time  of  Queen  Mary.  Eoth- 
well  is  the  most  noted  personage  who  appears,  and  he  is  set 
forth  as  a gallant  leader  of  men.  The  work  abounds  in  anti- 
quarian learning  but  the  dialect  in  which  it  is  cast  renders 
much  of  it  unint elligible  to  the  modern  reader. 

William  Robert  Cullen  in  "The  Unwedded  Bride"  deals  with 
Mary  Queen  of  Scots  and  the  dissensions  of  Papists  and  Protest- 
ants in  Aberdeen  and  Edinburgh.  The  novel  was  published  in 
1910. 


59 


set  forth,  and  in  that  by  Benson  there  has  been  a return  to  the 

(i) 

early  Catholic  adulation  of  her.  In  the  historical  novel 

Maurice  Hewlett  has  made  a remarkably  faithful  and  graphic  study 

of  Scotland  of  the  mid-sixteenth  century.  In  drama  her  story 

(?)  (S)  (4. 

has  been  told,v  * most  adequately  by  Michael  Field,  Ada  Sterling, 


1. -  "Come  Rack!  Come  Rope!"  by  Father  Hugh  Benson  (1912)  sets 
forth  events  accurately  but  Mary  has  never  appeared  more  blame- 
less, or  more  insipid,  or  the  Jesuits  in  a fairer  light.  The 
book  is  full  of  stirring  adventure  - the  flight  of  the  pro- 
scribed Jesuits,  the  ^abington  conspiracy,  the  trial  and  exec- 
ution of  Mary  - and  abounds  in  analyses  of  religious  emotion. 
Helena  Concannon  reviewing  the  novel  in  the  Catholic  World 
(vol.  99,  1914,  pp.  535-45)  speaks  of  Mary  as  standing  for 
Catholic  England,  "a  little  worn  and  wear y,  and  middle-aged, 
and  unattractive  except  to  the  few  faithful  souls  who  know  her 
best.  But  to  the  others ....  she  is  a mistress  to  be  fled  from. 
So  England  leaves  the  old  faith  for  the  new.  " 

2. -  H.  Cornelius  is  the  author  of  a trilogy:  "James  Stuart, 

Graf  von  Murray"  ( 1897 ) ; "Elisabeth,  Kifnigin  von  England" 
(1898);  and  "Maria  Stuart"  ( 1903) • 

"Elizabeth  of  England"  by  Nathaniel  S.  Shaler  (1903)  is  a 
"dramatic  romance  in  5 parts."  In  its  adulation  of  Elizabeth 
it  reverts  to  the  early  eighteenth  century  view  of  Mary  as  a 
monster  of  vice  and  sexual  morbidity. 


3. «  "Michael  Field"  is  the  pseudonym  of  Catherine  Bradley 
and  Emily  Cooper. 

4. -  Appearing  six  months  after  Drinkwat  er’ s "Mary  Stuart," 

Ada  Sterling’s  "Mary  Queen  of  Scots"  (1921)  is  the  latest  drama 
to  deal  with  the  story.  Miss  Sterling  in  the  preface  states 
her  purpose  of  revising  Schiller’s  play  to  meet  the  require-- 
mentB  of  the  modern  stage.  She  adapts  from  Scott  scenes  of 
Mary’ s life  at  Lochleven,  and  begins  the  account  with  Mary’s 
flight  from  Calais. 

The  first  episode,  Miss  Sterling’s  own  work,  is  well  writ- 
ten and  introduces  an  interesting  dramatic  conflict.  There  is 
a decided  loosening  of  the  tension  when  the  author  slights 
this  conflict  in  the  succeeding  scene.  The  play  aims  to  touch 
merely  the  crises  of  Mary’s  life,  and  each  of  necessity  re- 
ceives meager  treatment. 

The  earlier  accounts  with  Miss  Sterling  selects  for  abridge- 
ment are  those  of  Schiller  and  Scott. 


- 


. 

- 


- 

- 

t 


- 

. 


. 

70 


and  John  Drinkwater. 

These  works  do  not  "break  sharply  with  those  at  the 
end  of  the  preceding  century,  and  their  sole  difference  from 
them  is  a tendency  toward  moderation.  In  them  Mary  is  neither 
the  picturesque  martyr  of  Banks  nor  the  pathetic  queen  con- 
ceived by  Scott’s  romantic  imagination  nor  yet  the  morbid  har- 
lot of  Swinburne.  They  are,  for  the  most  part,  content  to 
admit  her  guilt  without  excusing  it  by  reference  to  environ- 
mental conditions  or  by  insistence  on  the  physical  necessities 
of  her  nature.  Her  weakness  is  not  condoned;  it  is  accepted 
without  comment. 

These  works,  further,  stay  closely  within  the  common- 
ly accepted  outlines  of  the  story.  They  evince  none  of  that 
desire  to  "explain”  history  by  the  introduction  of  imagined  in- 
cidents and  characters  that  the  sentimental  novelists  fifty 
years  earlier  showed.  The  distinctive  quality  about  them,  and 
this  is  particularly  true  of  the  three  productions  of  the  per- 
iod with  literary  merit,  is  that  they  do  not  make  striking  ad- 
ditions or  novel  interpretations  but  that  they  work  patiently 
over  the  materials  in  a spirit  of  tolerance.  In  one  sense,  as 
a result  of  this  leniency  toward  the  dramatis  personae,  Field’s 
"The  Tragic  Mary " may  be  called  a work  of  tolerant  sentimental- 
ism, and  Hewlett's  "The  Queen’s  Quair"  and  Drinkwat  er ' s "Mary 
Stuart"  tolerant  psychological  ana, lyses  of  Mary's  personality. 

Modified  Sentimentalism  tin  , he  .Tragi,! c Mary" 

Perhaps  the  meaning  of  these  terms  will  become  clear- 
er on  an  examination  of  the  novel  and  the  plays  themselves.  It 
has  been  said  that  sentimentalism  in  its  purest  form  viewed 


* 


< 

- 


71 


Mary  Stuart  as  an  essentially  noble  character  unjustly  suffering 
imprisonment  and  when  it  dwelt  upon  her  early  years,  as  it 
rarely  did,  it  forgave  her  because  of  her  innate  goodness.  It 
portrayed  her,  as  in  The  Tragic  Mary,  “ a woman  whose  attendant 
could  say  of  her:  “I  have  had  brave  thoughts  since  she  ques- 

tioned me,  and  I will  love  her  to  my  heart’s  end.”  It  showed 
her  an  unsuspicious  queen  who  could  arouse  by  her  charity  of 
mind  a tribute  in  “The  Tragic  Mary"  from  so  selfish  a character 
as  Let  hingt  cn  : 

The  queen  acts  in  a noble  childishness 
Of  unsuspicion,  ready  to  espouse 
Whoever  is  accused,  since  she  herself 
So  rankly  charged,  is  wholly  without  fault." 

It  emphasized  the  appeal  which  the  humbler  sert  iments  made  to 

her  and  stressed  the  redemptive  power  of  nature  on  her  spirit. 

In  accord  with  sentimental  practice  Field  makes  her  heroine  a 

woman  who  delights  in  ordinary  housewifely  duties  and  who  turns 

after  stormy  council  sessions  to  wild  rides  in  the  moonlight. 

In  an  intime.te  contact  with  nature  her  serenity  is  restored. 

The  Tragic  Mary  “ shows  also  the  influence  of  the 
psychological  studies  of  Mary’s  character  in  the  previous  cen- 
tury. She  is  depicted  a proud  passionate  woman,  a queen,  the 
author  says  in  the  preface,  with  “majesty  of  intellect,  con- 
scious of  the  burden  of  her  beauty,  and  devoting  every  power 
of  spirit  and  sense  to  the  reception  or  excitement  of  desire." 
Her  nature  lies  somewhere  between  contemporary  judgments  of 
her  - the  fool  that  her  officers  consider  her  and  the  wicked 
woman  that  the  savage,  brutal  Knox  opposes.  She  is  normal 


. 


. 


. 


. 


. 


72 


womanhood  exalted  to  sovereignty  and  bearirg  royal  dignities 
because  her  duty  compels  it,  even  though  she  prefers  domestic 
happiness.  Her  fate  is  not  so  much  the  tragedy  of  a noble 
mind  brought  low  through  human  weakness  as  the  pathetic  lot 
of  the  woman  raised  above  her  proper  station.  Bothwell’s 
fall  has  more  real  elements  of  tragedy  in  it,  for  the  earl  is 
a strong  , honest  lover  whose  ambition  and  lust  for  power 
bring  his  destruction: 

"I  have  so  much  to  hope,  so  much  to  do’* 

0 happiness!  I only  look  on  death 

To  feel  life’s  manifold  inducements  grow 
More  glorious  and  hazardous  than  ever 
They  were  before;  my  every  appetite. 

Each  mighty  muscle  in  me  seems  t o shout 
As  through  a lifted  trumpet!  I will  live, 

1 will  possess,  and  let  the  universe 
Endure  my  depredations.” 

The  principle  that  underlies  the  dramatic  structure 
of  ’The  Tragic  Mary”  is  that  which  animates  Greek  tragedy  - 
the  belief  that  the  emotions  of  the  audience  are  stirred  more 
by  the  consequences  of  an  action  than  by  the  action  itself. 
The  play  thus  come3  to  resemble  Alfieri’s  ’’Maria  Stuarda"  in 
its  small  number  of  characters  - five  in  all  - and  its  lack 
of  external  action.  The  conflict  is  a mental  and  spiritual 
one,  and  the  play  sets  forth  in  one  scene  after  another  the 
stages  in  the  inner  development  . The  murder  of  Darnley  oc- 
curs on  the  stage  but  the  audience  is  interested  in  the  mind 
of  the  murderer,  in  the  motives  that  finally  lead  him  to  the 
act  and  the  memories,  regrets,  and  fears  that  follow  it.  The 
verse  of  the  play  is  strong,  direct,  and  beautiful,  except  for 
occasional  daring  phrases  and  extravagant  similes. 


9 


73 

A Realist  ic  Historical  J^ovel  in.  "The  Queen^s  .Quair  " 

^The  Tragic  Mary"  illustrates  modifications  which  the 
late  nineteenth  psychological  spirit  had  made  in  one  type  of 
Mary  Stuart  literature.  "The  Queen’s  Quair,"  by  Maurice  Hewlett, 
(1905)  shows  similar  changes  occurring  in  the  historical  novel 
dealing  with  the  same  subject.  MA  book  about  Queen  Mary  - if 
it  be  honest  - has  no  business  to  be  an  exercise  in  the  roman- 
tic, " Bays  the  author  in  the  preface.  "If  the  truth  is  to  be 
told,  let  it  be  there."  Following  this  ideal  he  draws  a stern, 
realistic  picture  of  a stirring  period,  going  far  beyond  Scott’s 
purpose  in  "The  Abbot"  of  presenting  wide  historical  movements 
for  their  significance  in  national  life.  He  exhibits  in  minute 
detail  even  the  most  trifling  incidents  of  the  story  - the  de- 
nunciations of  Knox,  the  intrigues  of  the  nobles,  the  execution 
of  Lord  Huntly,  Mary’s  marriage  with  Larnley,  Riccio’s  murder, 
the  conspiracy  ending  in  Larnley’ s assassination,  the  union 
with  Bothwell,  the  fiasco  of  Carbery,  and  the  humiliating  re- 
turn to  Edinburgh.  Eveiy  historical  character,  important  or 
insignificant,  is  crowded  into  his  pages,  with  a great  con- 
fusion of  motives.  There  results,  not  the  simplicity  of  great 
tragedy  as  in  Schiller,  but  a meticulous,  scholarly  study  of 
an  earlier  epoch.  The  story  does  not  touch  the  heart  of  the 
reader,  although  it  itis  gorgeous  diction,  its  facile  workman- 
ship, and  it  8 lifelike  recreation  of  the  period  it  makes  a 
strong  appeal  to  hie  iraagin  e.t  ion. 

In  "The  Abbot  " the  tragedy  of  Mary  Stuart  was  the 
loss  of  her  throne;  in  this  modern  realistic  novel  the  tragedy 


74 


lies  in  the  breaking  of  her  spirit.  ^ As  long  as  she  main- 
tains her  indomitable  Stuart  courage  she  can  face  the  world. 


Once  she  has  lost  it  she  is  a baffled,  sorely  disillusioned 
woman  looking  eagerly  toward  death.  Initially  innocent,  she 
comes  to  Scotland,  a land  of  jealous,  pitiless  nobles  and  aban- 
doned lower  classes.  From  this  point  onward  the  narrative  is 
concerned  with  describing  the  gradual  change  in  her  character 
among  her  sombre,  evil  surroundings.  Her  trust  is  often  be- 
trayed, and  she  becomes  suspicious  of  every  one;  the  sweet- 
ness is  slowly  sapped  from  her  nature;  she  meets  treachery 
with  treachery  and  intrigue  with  intrigue.  Anxious  for  love, 
she  seeks  a man  who  in  his  brilliance,  gaiety,  keen  wit  and 
daring  can  rival  her,  and  in  the  search  she  is  the  destined 
prey  of  the  masterful  Eothwell.  His  pretended  indifference 
makes  her  pursuit  of  him  only  the  more  eager. 

At  this  crisis  in  her  career  Hewlett  accepts  the 
darkest  accusations  against  her.  The  casket  letters  are  gen- 
uine, and  Mary,  enslaved  by  her  passion  for  Eothwell,  is  his 
accomplice  in  the  murder  of  her  husband.  For  these  crimes 
Hewlett  does  not  seek  to  extenuate  her,  for  her  early  training 


1.-  "Forth  from  the  Lady  of  Lorraine  came  the  lass,  born  in  an 
unhappy  hour,  tossing  high  her  young  head,  saying,  ’Let  me 
alone  to  rule  wild  Scot  land ’...  .Maids  ’ Adventure  - with  that 

we  begin A hundred  books  have  been  written,  a hundred 

songs  sung;  men  enough  of  these  latter  days  have  broken 
their  hearts  for  Q,ueen  Mary’s.  What  is  more  to  the  matter  is 
that  no  heart  but  hers  was  broken  in  time.  All  the  world  can 
love  her  now;  but  who  loved  her  then?  Hot  a man  among  them. 

A few  girls  went  weeping;  a few  boys  laid  down  their  necks 
that  she  might  walk  free  of  the  mire.  Alas’,  the  mire  swallow- 
ed them  up,  and  she  must  soil  her  pretty  feet.  This  is  the 
nut  of  the  tragedy;  pity  is  involved  rather  than  terror.” 
(Author’s  preface). 


- 


. 


. . . 


75 


and  the  unwholesome  atmosphere  of  Holyrood  have  largely  decided 
her  doom.  Her  plight  is  not  tragic,  therefore,  although  in 
moments  of  great  decision  she  follows  her  passions  instead  of 
her  intellectual  convictions  and  thus  has  a part  in  bringing 
the  final  catastrophe.  She  is  a pitiable  figure  caught  in  the 
net  o f fat  e . 

"The  Queen’s  Qpair"  applies  in  the  novel  the  psychol- 
ogical test  of  character  that  Swinburne  applied  in  his  trilogy. 
Both  works  give  dark,  depressing  glimpses  of  a troubled,  god- 
less land  in  which  there  are  few  men  breathing  truth,  virtue, 
and  honor;  both  are  permeated  with  a feeling  of  pessimism,  a 
sense  of  the  futility  of  struggling  against  fate.  They  differ 
widely,  however,  in  their  attitude  toward  the  main  character. 

In  Swinburne  34a ry  is  essentially  evil.  She  is  static  from  one 
play  to  another  of  the  trilogy,  except  for  a gradual  coarsen- 
ing of  moral  fibre.  Hewlett,  on  the  contrary,  adopts  the  view 
that  a nature  inherently  good  can  be  warped  and  brought  to 
destruction  by  the  power  of  environment.  In  his  Mary  Stuart 
there  is  a gradual  degeneration  as  good  qualities  recede  and 
evil  tendencies  come  to  the  fore  under  the  stress  of  her  love 
for  Bothwell.  The  novel  thus  gains  a vitality,  a sense  of 
progression,  that  the  dramas  lack. 

Mary’ s Tragedy  as  Conceived  by  Brink water 

The  psychological  interest  whi  ch  Swinburne  and  Hew- 
lett showed  in  their  searching,  almost  pathological  treatments 
of  Mary’s  character  is  the  one  that  has  inspired  John  Brink- 
water  in  "Mary  Stuart"  (1021).  Here  the  dramatist  goes  to  the 


76 


past  for  a solution  of  a modern  problem  and  f o r a setting  from 
which  it  can  be  regarded  calmly  and  dispassionately.'1^  As  in 
’The  Qpeen’s  Q.uair"  this  tendency  toward  a thorough  examination 
of  Mary’s  nature  leads  toward  a conception  of  man’s  failure  in 
life  because  it  is  the  will  of  fate  that  he  shall  never  find 
that  environment  in  uihich  his  personality  can  develop  unhampered. 
Lrinkwat er  sees  Mary  as  a human,  not  uncommon  type  of  woman. 

It  is  predestined  that  her  fine,  strong,  ardent  spirit  shall 
seek  its  mate  and  it  is  predestined  not  to  find  one  equal  to 
it.  Therein  lies  the  tragedy. 

The  play  revolves  around  the  marital  troubles  of  the 
young  Scot chman,  John  Hunter,  who  is  introduced  in  the  pro-  „ 
logue.  His  wife,  Margaret,  has  come  to  love  another  man  with- 
out ceasing  to  love  her  husband.  He  is  wondering  how  a woman 
may  so  divide  her  love  and  be  true  to  two  men  at  once  when  the 
scene  changes  from  modern  Edinburgh  to  Holyrood  on  the  night 
of  March  9,  1566.  Hunter  can  be  aided  in  his  difficulty  by 
Mary  Stuart,  whose  faith  it  is  that  “we  must  become  love  or  it 
spends  us." 

She  is  a woman  with  a capacity  for  a great  love, 
which  she  fatalistically  realizes  will  never  come  to  her.  She 
wonders  which  of  her  lovers  will  win  her  - "the  scented  pimp, 
the  callow  fool,  or  the  bully"  - but  she  knows  that  in  the 

1.-  "In  ’Abraham  Lincoln’  he  wanted  to  show  those  human  qual- 
ities of  mind  and  heart  that  make  a.  great  and  wise  leader  of 
men.  In  ’Mary  Stuart*  he  wants  to  show  how  the  fine  qualities 
of  a woman’s  mind  and  heart  can  be  thwarted,  can  count  for 
nothing,  when  the  woman  is  not  happy  and  richly  and  completely 
fulfilled  in  her  love  life."  The  Lraroa.  vol.  11,  1921,  p.  255. 


77 


end  life  will  cheat  her.  As  the  old  song  has  it, 

"Not  Riccio  nor  Barnley  knew 
Nor  Eothwell  how  to  find 
This  Mary's  test  magnificence 
Of  the  great  lover's  mind." 

She  has  no  feeling  for  Ficcio  except  regret  that  he  has  not 
the  stature  for  love  with  her,  and  she  ignores  Barnley  as  a 
jealous  courtier  with  small  intelligence.  Toward  Bothwell 
she  turns  eagerly,  kindling  to  the  ardor  of  his  wooing,  yet 
restrained  by  her  conviction  that  their  attraction  is  only 
momentary.  It  is  not  the  great  love  for  which  she  is  waiting. 
"Mary  Stuart  was  a queen  of  love,"  she  telle  her  maid,  "but 
she  had  no  subjects.  She  was  love's  servant,  but  she  found 
no  lord."  She  is  driven  through  the  world;  she  cannot  find 
peace  because  there  is  no  man  whose  largeness  of  nature  ans- 
wers her  own.^^  After  the  murder  of  Riccio  she  yields  to 
Bothwell  in  revulsion  from  the  weakness  of  her  other  lovers. 
The  potentialities  for  royalty  in  her  - the  political  keenness 
displayed  in  her  interview  with  Elizabeth's  ambassador,  her 
splendid  physical  courage,  her  almost  masculine  resolution  of 
spirit,  her  power  of  analyzing  moral  issues  of  personal  and 


1.-  Mary  thus  answers  Barnley  when  he  demands  that  she  dismiss 
Riccio*.  "There  are  tides  in  me  as  fierce  as  any  that  have 
troubled  women.  And  they  are  restless,  always,  always.  Bo  you 
think  I desire  that?  Bo  you  think  I have  no  other  longings  - 
to  govern  with  a clear  brain,  to  prove  myself  against  these 
foreign  jealousies,  to  see  Strong  children  about  me,  to  play 
with  an  easy  festival  mind,  to  walk  the  evenings  et  peace? 

All  should  be  resolved  and  clear  in  me,  with  a king  to  match 
my  kir^dom.  My  love  is  crazed,  a turbulence,  without  direction. 
It  was  made  to  move  in  long--yes,  deep--assurance,  moulding  me 
beyond  my  knowledge.  I,  who  should  be  love,  may  but  burn  and 
burn  with  the  love  that  I am  not . " 


, 


' 

- 

78 


national  importance  - all  are  thwarted  and  wasted  "because  the 
love  in  her  nature  must  remain  unfulfilled. 

This  view  of  Mary  Stuart,  in  common  with  that  of 
Hewlett,  presents  forcefully  that  thought  that  whatever  Mary's 
nature  was,  it  was  opposed  by  fate.  In  consequence  the  climax 
of  the  play,  as  is  the  case  in  "The  Queen’s  Quair"  and  in 
Swinburne’s  trilogy  also,  is  not  a moral  climax.  At  the  be- 
ginning there  is  told  Mary’s  strong  desire  for  a mate  who  will 
be  her  peer  and  her  revolt  against  the  ignoble  intrigues  by 
which  she  must  satisfy  her  passion.  A.fter  this  there  is 
nothing  to  be  said,  no  new  material  to  dwell  upon  except  in- 
cident. There  are  present  none  of  the  elements  of  pity  and 
fear  that  Greek  tragedy  demands.  As  in  other  realistic  in- 
terpretations of  Mary's  character  she  is  pictured  as  an  in- 
terest ing  type  of  royal  womanhood,  but  her  history  has  not 
been  examined  to  discover  the  paradox  of  good  and  evil  in 
her  that  finally  causes  her  death.  The  peculiar  qualities 
in  her  personality  in  their  relation  to  environment  are  por- 
trayed sympathetically  eo  that  they  exculpate  her  almost  as 
completely  as  her  native  goodness  o.f  heart  excuses  her  in 
Hanks  and  St.  John.  In  other  words,  it  is  the  perversity  of 
fate  rather  than  tragic  guilt  that  forces  the  final  catas- 
trophe in  krinkwater.  Here  is  not,  as  in  the  humanistic 
view  of  Schiller,  a woman  capable  of  good  and  evil  who,  al- 
though influenced  in  her  decisions  by  her  early  training  and 
her  struggle  against  her  bleak,  ugly  surroundings,  neverthe- 
less sees  the  alternative  courses  before  her  and  consciously 


• 

- 

•* 

79 


chooses  those  whi  ch  accomplish  her  ruin. 

Modern  Solutions  of  the  Problem  of  Mary  Stuart 

Drinkwat er*  e combination  of  a sympathetic  attitude 
toward  Mary  Stuart  with  a none  the  less  searching  study  of 
her  character  is  an  important  step  in  the  gradual  approach 
to  the  heart  of  the  problem  which  dramatists  and  novelists 
have  made.  The  early  Catholic  apologists  in  their  eagerness 
to  canonize  Mary  and  to  point  a religious  moral  from  her 
lot  had  selected  an  aspect  of  the  story  that  could  not  be  of 
permanent  interest.  The  eighteenth  century  sentimentalists 
in  their  depiction  of  a noble  queen  in  undeserved  distress 
had  been  similarly  unobservant  of  the  deeper  meaning  of  the 
situation.  They  had  wisely  made  little  reference  to  the 
struggle  between  Catholicism  and  Protestantism  but  had  exam- 
ined the  political  conditions  of  the  time  in  order  to  excuse 
Mary  or,  conversely,  to  justify  Elizabeth.  Jesuit  and  sent- 
imentalist writer  alike  had  been  unsuccessful.  Mary  was  for 
them  too  much  the  pars-gon,  the  type  of  womanhood  set  apart 
from  her  surroundings  to  excite  admiration  and  pity.  The 
question  of  her  guilt  had  been  ignored  by  them  or  answered 
in  feeble  fashion. 

Schiller  in  drama  and  Scott  in  the  novel  had  res- 
tored Mary  to  her  place  as  a historical  personage.  The  pol- 
itical, social,  and  religious  movements  of  the  time  had  been 
described,  but  they  had  been  subordinated  to  the  background, 
where  they  exercised  a power  in  shaping  the  queen’s  ideals. 
Mary  had  been  held  responsible  for  her  crime;  at  the  same 


80 


time  her  noble  qualities  had  been  recognized.  She  had  been 
made  a livirg  woman  with  human  virtues  and  human  weaknesses. 
Her  death  in  "Maria  Stuart*’  and  the  lose  of  her  throne  in 
‘'The  Abbot**  had  resulted  directly  from  her  inability  to  pur- 
sue the  course  of  action  which  her  better  nature  prompted  her 
to  follow. 

But  in  these  two  great  humanistic  works  Scott  and 
Schiller  had  given  unequal  emphasis  to  Mary’s  nobility  of 
character.  Schiller  in  particular  had  been  hampered  by  the 
form  he  employed.  Hie  tragedy  must  have  dignity  and  elev- 
ation, and  it  could  not  portray  its  heroine  as  too  consist- 
ently sinful.  In  consequence  he  was  forced  to  focus  atten- 
tion on  a single  act  in  which  all  the  potentialities  for 
evil  in  her  nature  are  revealed.  This  one  deed,  although 
it  sums  up  her  fatal  weakness,  must  appear  scanty  ground  for 
the  punishment  meted  her. 

Although  they  admit  her  guilt  neither  Schiller  nor 
Scott  deals  with  her  first  years  in  Scotland,  the  time  when 
Mary  appears  in  a most  unfavorable  light.  The  need  for  a 
careful  study  of  these  years  in  the  light  of  modern  psychol- 
ogy was  met  by  Swinburne  and  Hewlett  in  works  that  presented 
her  nature  in  its  primitive  passion  with  the  objectivity  and 
merciless  fidelity  of  a surgical  clinic. 

The  Swinburnian  trilogy,  and  t o a lesser  extent 
**The  Qpeen’s  Quair,"  was  unsuccessful  in  its  treatment  of  Mary 
Stuart  because  for  all  its  excellent  analysis  its  view  was  as 
extreme  as  that  of  earlier  optimistic  apologists.  It  failed 


. 

- 


’ 

- t ■; 


■ 


. . 

- 

, 


81 


utterly  to  take  into  account  the  good  in  Mary’s  conduct,  which 
historians  have  established  as  firmly  as  they  have  determined 
her  crimes. 

In  his  view  of  Mary  Queen  of  Scots  Drinkwater  takes 
the  middle  of  the  road  attitude.  He  has  a scientist’s  interest 
in  the  springs  of  human  action  and  a poet’s  conception  of  the 
essentially  paradox! cally  nature  of  mankind.  His  "Mary  Stuart  M 
is  in  reality  only  a long  one-act  play  within  the  narrow  com- 
pass tut  one  aspect  of  Mary  - Mary  as  the  great  lover  - can  te 
touched.  Other  elements  in  the  situation  remain  untreated 
ty  this  modern  attitude,  an  attitude  that  tempers  with  the 
broad  humanism  of  Scott  and  Schiller  the  analytic,  objective 
interest  of  Swinburne  and  Hewlett. 


. 


CHRONOLOGICAL  LIST  OF  DRAMA  CONCERNING  MARY  STUART 


(Each  drama  is  listed  under  the  year  of  first  production  or 
first  publication . Wherever  there  are  several  editions  of  a 
play  the  best  critical  or  annotated  edition  has  been  mentioned.) 

1593  Roulers,  Adrian.  "Insulani  Stuarta  Tragoedia,  siue  Caedes 
Mariae  Sereni  ssimae  Scot.  Reginae  in  Angl.  perpetrate..  " 
In  "Lat eini sche  Lit  eraturdenkreA'ler  des  XVI  und  XVII 
Jahrhundert s , " vol.  17,  Max  Herrmann,  Berlin,  1906. 

1539  Regnault . "Marie  Stuard  Reyne  d’Escosse.”  Quinet , Paris. 

1344  Prague  Jesuit  drama.  "Zeidler,  Studien  und  Beitr^ge  zur 
Geschichte  der  Jesuit enkomdfdie  und  des  Klost erdramas . " 
Hamburg  and  Leipzig,  1891. 

1660  Vondel,  Joost  van.  "Maria  Stuart  of  Germartelde  Majes- 
(?)  teit."  J.  van  Lennep,  Amsterdam,  1859. 

1660  Diamante,  Juan  Bautista.  "La.  Reyna  Maria  Eetuarda. " 

(?) 

1653  Savaro,  Giovanni  Francesco.  "La,  Maria  Stuarda . " 

1679  Riemer,  Johannes.  "Von  hohen  Verm^hlungen. " 

1704  Banks,  John.  'The  Albion  Queens;  or,  The  Death  of  Mary, 
Queen  of  Scotland.  A Tragedy."  (Written  in  1574). 

J.  Darby,  London,  1728. 

1?05  Kolczawa,  Karl.  "Tregicae  Fortunae  Metamorphosis  sue 

Riccius,  Stuartee  Reginae  Scotiae  Primus  a Consiliis." 

1776  Alfieri,  Vittorio.  "Maria  Stuarda."  Translation  in  "The 
Literature  of  Italy,"  vol.  8,  The  National  Alumni, 

1907. 

1780  Yorke,  John.  "Mary,  Queen  of  Scotland." 

1?8Z>  Spiesz,  C.  H.  "Marie  Stuart."  Joseph  Edlen  von  Kurzbek, 
Wien,  1784. 

1769  St.  John,  John.  "Mary,  Queen  of  Scots."  Longman,  Lon- 
don, 1811. 

1792  Deverell,  Mary.  "Mary  Queen  of  Scots  - An  Historical 
Tragedy,  or  Dramatic  Poem."  Gloucheeter. 

1800  Schiller,  Johann  Friedrich  Christopher  von.  "Maria 

Stuart."  D.  C.  Heath  and  Company,  New  York,  1914. 

1801  Grahame,  James.  "Mary  Stewart  Queen  of  Scots."  William 

Elackwood,  Edinburgh,  1807. 

1814  Sotheby,  William.  "The  Death  of  Darnley."  Murray,  Lon- 
don, 1614.  , 


85 


1810 

1820 

(?) 

1820 

1820 

1825 

1825 

1827 

1851 

1854 

1840 

1860 

1864 

1865 
1668 
1874 
1876 
1881 


"Mary  Stuart,  Queen  of  Scots."  Adaptation  from  Schiller, 
played  by  Kemble  and  Macready  December  14,  1810. 

Caracciolo,  Mariano.  "Morte  di  Maria  Stuarda."  Allge- 
meinee  Theat er-Lexikon,  Altenburg  and  Leipzig,  1846. 

Hamilton,  Colonel  Ralph.  "David  Ricci o;  a Serious  Op- 
era, in  three  acts  (founded  on  Scottish  history).  As 
performed  at  the  Theatre  Royal  Durry  Lane  17  June 
1820."  John  Lowndes,  London,  1820. 

Lebrun,  Fierre-Ar.t  oine . "Marie  Stuart,  Tragfedie  en  cinq 
actes."  Ladvocat  and  Barba,  Paris,  1820. 

Macauley,  Elizabeth  Wright.  "Mary  Stuart,  a Dramatic 
Representation."  Sherword,  London,  1825. 

Murray,  William.  "Mary,  Queen  of  Scots;  or,  The  Escape 
from  Loch  Leven.  A Historical  Drama,  in  Two  Acts. 

First  Performed  at  the  Edinburgh  Theatre,  October  5rd, 
1825."  John  Dicke,  London,  1825. 

"Know  Your  Own  Mind."  Adaptation  from  Scott,  played  at 
Bath,  January  15,  1827. 

Mitford,  Mary  Russell.  "Mary  Queen  of  Scots."  Whittaker, 
London,  1851. 

Donizetti,  Gaetano.  "Maria  Stuarda,  Oper. " Presented  in 
Naples . 

Haynes,  James.  "Mary  Stuart:  An  Historical  Tragedy,  in 

Five  Acts."  J.  Ridgwary,  London,  1840. 

Bamme,  Julius.  "Maria  Stuart,  oder : Die  Reformation  in 

Schottlsnd.  Drama  in  fii'nf  Akten."  Anton,  Halle,  1850. 

Bjtfrnson,  Bjtfrnst jerne.  "Maria  Stuart  I Skotlend."  Nic- 
olai, Berlin,  1865. 

Swinburne,  Algernon  Charles.  "Chast elard. " Harper  and 
Brothers,  New  York,  1907. 

Schneegane,  Ludwig.  "Maria,  K(5nigin  von  Schottland. 

Drama  in  fflnf  Aufztfgen. " G.  Weiez,  Heidelberg,  1868. 

Swinburne,  Algernon  Charles.  "Bothwell."  Harper  and 
Brothers,  New  York,  1907. 

Fane,  Violet.  "Anthony  Babirgton,  A Drama."  Chapman  and 
Hall,  London,  1876. 

Swinburne,  Algernon  Charles.  "Mary  Stuart."  Harper  and 
Brothers,  New  York,  1907. 


84 


1884  Quinn,  M.  ♦’Mary  Queen  of  Scots.  A Tragedy  in  Three  Acte. 

Washbourne,  Ldonon,  1884. 

1885  Peyster,  Major-General  John  Watts  de.  "Bothweli:  an 

Historical  Drama. " Hew  York,  1885. 

1890  ’’Field,  Micheal."  (Bradley,  Catherine  and  Cooper,  Emily). 
”The  Tragic  Mary.”  George  Bell  and  Sons,  London, 

1890. 

1894  Plaice,  Robert.  ”Mary  Queen  of  Scots:  A Tragedy  in  5 

acts.”  Simpkin,  Marshall  and  Company,  Loridon,  1894. 

1893  Cornelius,  H.  "Maria  Stuart,  Ktfnigin  von  Schott  land." 
Schtfningh,  Paderborn,  1897. 

1898  Graham,  David.  "Riccio,  An  Historical  Tragedy.  " A. Con- 
stable and  Company,  Westminster,  1898. 

1905  Shaler,  Nathaniel  S.  "Elizabeth  of  England."  Houghton 
Mifflin  Company,  Boston,  1905. 

1921  Brinkwat er , John.  "Mary  Stuart."  Houghton  Mifflin  Com- 
pany, Boston,  1921. 

1921  Sterling,  Ada.  "Mary,  Queen  of  Scots."  Oxford  University 
Prese,  Hew  York,  1921. 


CHRONOLOGICAL  LIST  OF  FICTION  CONCERNING  MARY  STUART 

(The  date  under  which  the  novel  is  listed  is  that  of  first  pub- 
lication. ) 

1675  Eoisguiltert , Pierre  le  Pesant  de.  "Marie  Stuart,  Reine 
d’Escosse,"  Paris,  1675. 

1680  LaF&yette,  Marie  Madeleine  Pioche.  "The  Princess  of 
Cleves."  Translation,  J.  Party,  London,  1820. 

1725  Haywood,  Mrs.  Eliza.  "Mary  Stuart,  Queen  of  Scots:  Eeing 

the  Secret  History  of  her  Life,  and  the  Heal  Causes  of 
all  her  Misfortunes  Containing  a Relation  of  many  Part- 
icular Transactions  in  her  Reign;  Never  yet  Published 
in  any  Collection."  London,  1725. 

1785  Lee,  Sophia.  "The  Recess." 

1620  Scott,  Sir  Walter.  "The  Abbot."  Waverley  Novels,  Amer- 
ican edition,  1892-1900. 

1850  Galt,  John.  "Southennan. " Works  of  Galt,  William  Black- 
wood and  Sons,  Edinburgh,  1895-96. 

1840  Pumas,  Alexandre.  "The  Life  of  Mary  Stuart,  Queen  of 
Scots."  Translation,  Merriam,  New  York,  1896. 

1845  Pumas,  Alexandre.  ’The  Two  Lianas."  Translation,  Ver- 
sailles edition  of  Lumas,  Little  Brown  and  Company, 
1802. 

1854  Grant,  James.  "Bothwell . " 

1862  Melville,  George  John  Whyte.  "The  Queen’s  Maries."  Long- 
mans, Green  and  Company,  New  York,  1862. 

1865  Pitawall,  Ernst  (Herra.  vcn  Ledenroth)  . "Mari©.  Stuart, 

Hist orische-romant ische  Geschichte  der  Zeit  una  dee 
Lebens  der  Ktfnigin  von  Schottl&nd,  Mari©  Stuart." 
Vienna. 

1882  Yonge,  Charlotte  Mary.  "Unknown  to  History."  Macmillan 
and  Company,  London,  1920. 

1886  Maclaren,  Jessie.  "Neil  Wilcox:  A Story  of  Edinburgh 

in  the  Lays  of  Queen  Marie." 

1886  Bede,  Cuthbert  ("Edward  Eradley") . "Fotheringay  and  Mary 
Queen  of  Scots. " Simpkin,  Marshall  and  Company,  Lon- 
don, 1888. 

1897  Hamilton,  Lord  Ernest  William.  ’'The  Outlaws  of  the  Mar- 
ches." Lodd,  Mead  and  Company,  New  York,  1897. 

1899  Mathew,  Frank.  "One  Queen  T riumphant . " Lane,  London, 
1899. 


. 


, 


. 


- 


. 


. 


. 


86 


1900  Lee,  Albert . 'The  Gentleman  Pensioner:  A Romance  of  the 

Year  1569.“  Appleton,  New  York,  1900. 

1901  Hamilton,  Lord  Ernest  William.  "Mary  Hamilton:  Her  Life 

and  History."  Methuen  and  Company,  London,  1901. 

1902  Major,  Charles  (Edwin  Caskoden) . "Dorothy  Vernon  of  Had- 

don  Hall."  Groeset  and  Dunlap,  New  York,  1902. 

1903  Bailey,  Henry  Christopher.  "The  Master  of  Gray."  Long- 

mans, Green  and  Company,  New  York,  1902. 

1902  Hewlett.  Maurice.  ^he  Queen’s  Quair."  Charles  Scrib- 
ners s Sons,  New  York,  1903. 

1909  Pease,  Howard.  "With  the  Warden  of  the  Marches:  or, 

The  Vow  by  the  ’Nine  Stane  Rig.’"  Constable,  London, 
1909. 

1910  Cullen,  William  Robert.  "The  Unwedded  Bride."  Longman, 

London,  1910. 

1912  Benson,  Pather  Robert  Hugh.  "Come  Racki  Come  Rope’." 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


A.  Compilations  and  Crit  iclsmg  of  Mary  Stuart  Literature 

Scott,  John.  '’Bibliography  of  Works  Relating  to  Mary, 
Queen  of  Scots,  1544-1700.”  Edinburgh  Bibliograph- 
ical Society  Publications,  vol.  2,  Edinburgh,  1895. 

Kipka,  Karl.  "Maria  Stua,rt  in  Lrama  der  Welt  lit  eratur. 


B.  Manuals  of  Biography  and  of  Fiction 

1.  Eor  their  biographies  of  authors  and  their  reference  to 
critical  works  concerning  them,  the  following  are  useful: 


2.  Manuals  of  historical  fiction  which  give  details  of  pub- 
lics.ticn  and  brief  reviews  of  the  novele,  especially  the  less 
important  ones  dealing  with  Mary  Stuart: 

Baker,  E.  A.  "A  Guide  to  the  Best  Eiction  in  English." 
Macmillan,  Kew  York,  1913. 

Baker,  E.  A.  "A  Guide  to  Historical  Fiction."  George 
Routledge  and  Sons,  London,  1914. 

Buckley,  J.  A.  and  Williams.  V/.  T.  "A  Guide  to  British 
Historical  Fiction."  George  G.  Harrap,  London,  1912. 

Kaye,  James  R.  "Historical  Fiction."  Snowdon  Publishing 
Company,  Chicago,  1920. 

C,  Historical  Accounts  of  the  Period 

1.  Early  accounts.  For  their  picture  of  Scottish  history  and 
for  their  influence  in  moulding  popular  opinion  in  regard  to  the 
Stuarts  theee  histories  are  important. 

Bourdeille,  Pierre  de  ( Abbfe  de  Brantome).  'The  Book  cf 
the  Ladies."  Hardy,  Pratt  and  Company,  Boston,  1902. 
Presents  sympathetically  Mary's  fortunes  from  the  point 
of  view  of  a man  who  accompanied  her  from  France  to 
Scotland,  who  lived  at  Holyrood  until  her  capture,  and 
who  was  present  at  her  execution.  Historically  it  is 
important  for  its  influence  on  descriptions  of  Mary's 
execution.  It  served  in  its  own  day  to  counteract  the 
accusations  of  Buchanan. 


» g 

Mfl-s c Harris  Leipzig,  1907.  (See  Chapter  I,  page  4 


"Allgemeines  Theater  Lexikon,  " Altenburg  and  Leipzig, 
1845. 


88 


Robert  eon,  William.  ’The  History  of  Scotland  During  the 
Reigns  of  Queen  Mary  and  King  James  VI.”  Cadell  and 
Davies,  London, ,,1817 . Deals  only  with  Mary’s  reign 
in  Scotland,  ii’  is  popular  as  source  material  for 
dramatists  and  novelists.  Its  view  of  Mary  is  human- 
istic. 

Strickland,  Agnes.  HLives  of  the  Queens  of  Scotland.  ” 
Harpers,  New  York,  1854.  The  great  historical  study 
of  Mary  during  the  nineteenth  century;  very  influ- 
ential on  public  opinion  in  regard  to  Mary  Stuart. 

(Labannff’s  critical  work,  for  which  much  historical  data  has 
been  amassed,  gives  the  best  discussion  of  the  casket  letters). 

2 . Modern  accounts.  These  recent  historians  have  dealt  with 
the  problem  of  the  casket  letters  or  have  given  humanistic  de- 
scriptions of  Mary’ s conduct; 

Hume,  Martin.  ’The  Love  Affairs  of  Mary  Queen  of  Scots.” 
Eveleigh  and  Nashnon,  London,  1905. 

Lang,  Andrew.  The  Mystery  of  Mary  Stuart.”  Longmans, 
Green  and  Company,  London,  1901. 

Mumby,  Frank  Arthur.  ’’Elizabeth  and  Mary  Stuart.”  Hough- 
ton Mifflin  Company,  Heston,  1914. 

Mumby,  Frank  Arthur.  The  Fall  of  Mary  Stuart.”  Hough- 
ton Mifflin  Company,  Boston,  1918. 

D • Eng  1 1 sh  St  ag  e Hi  st  or v 

1.  A broad  survey  of  the  movements  of  English  dramatic  liter- 
ature is  given  in  an  adequate,  scholarly  fashion  in  the  follow- 
ing : 

Cunningham,  Allan.  biographical  and  Critical  History  of 
the  Last  Fifty  Years.”  London  and  Edinburgh,  1852. 

Hazlitt , William  Carew.  "A  Hand-Book  to  the  Popular 
Poetical  and  Dramatic  Literature  of  Great  Eritain.” 
London,  1857. 

Ward,  Adolphus  William.  "A  History  of  English  Dramatic 
Literature  to  the  Death  of  Qu  een  Anne.”  Macmillan, 
London,  1799. 

2.  Especially  valuable  for  contemporary  accounts  of  stage 
productions  are  these  collections  of  reviews: 

Baker,  David  Erskine  and  Jone3,  Stephen.  ”Eiographica 
Dramatica.  ” Longman,  London,  1812. 


80 


'‘Companion  to  the  Theatre."  J.  bourse,  London,  1747. 

Fleay,  Frederick  Gard.  "A  Chronicle  History  of  the  Lon- 
don Stage  1550-1342."  Reeves  and  Turnder,  London, 

1800. 

Genest,  John.  "Some  Account  of  the  English  Stage  From 
The  Restoration  in  1630  to  1830."  H.  E.  Carrington, 
Bath,  1832. 

E.  German  g^nd  Aust^i.^n  Ma,rv JD 

Michels  and  von  Pichler  treat  the  cruder,  less  sophisticat- 
ed forms  of  the  Jesuit  drama;  Stachel  reviews  the  development 
of  the  University  Jesuit  dramas,  with  especial  reference  to 
their  dependence  on  Seneca* 

Michels,  Victor.  "Studien  IJLer  die  Altesten  Leutschen 
Fest nacht spiele . " K.  J.  Trainer,  Strassburg,  1806. 

von  Pichler,  F.  "Uher  das  Lrama  des  Mittelalters  in 
Tirol."  Innsbruck,  1850. 

Stachel,  Paul.  "Seneca  und  das  deutsche  Renal ssanc edrama. " 
Meyer  and  Mtfller,  Boston,  1007. 

F.  Criticism  tof  ^Individual  ,^o,r k§, 

In  this  study  it  has  often  been  impossible,  especially  in 
the  case  of  German  drama  or  minor  pieces,  to  examine  the  works 
themselves.  The  author  has  found  the  following  analyses  of  in- 
dividual novels  and  plays  or  or  the  author's  literary  method 
stimulating  and  suggestive. 


Everett,  William.  "The  Italian  Poets  Since  Lante."  Luck- 
worth  and  Company,  London,  1910. 

Rusconi,  John.  "The  Alfieri  Centenary."  Fortnight lv 
Review,  vol.  80,  1903,  pp.  769-81. 


Robert  Hur}-^ .Bqqqqq _ 

Concannon,  Helena.  "Robert  Hugh  Benson:  Novelist." 

Catholic  World,  vol.  99,  1914,  pp.  635-45. 


Boyesen,  Hjalmar  Hjorth.  "Essays  on  Scandinavian  Liter- 
ature." Charles  Scribners  Sons,  New  York,  1895. 


90 


"Bot  hwell ' s Banish  T omb  . H Ljtt  ell’s.  Ag.e,  vo  1 . 

309,  1921,  pp.  303-05. 

Brandes,  George.  ’’Henrik  Ibsen.  3 jtfrnst  j e rne  Bjifrnson  . 
Critical  Studies.”  William  Heinemann,  London,  1899. 

Payne,  William  Morton.  ”Bj tfrnst j erne  Bjtfrnson."  McClurg, 
Chicago,  1910. 

iaJaJiUa&ssUs 

"John  Drinkwater.”  Nat i on . vol.  112,  1921,  pp.  554-55. 

Eaton,  Walt  er  Pri  chard.  "Drinkwat  er  ’ s ’Mary  Stuart.’” 

The  Drama v vol.  11,  1921,  pp.  255-56. 

Ervine,  St.  John.  "John  Drinkwater’e  ’Ma.ry  Stuart.’” 

Ljtt  el],*  b Living  A&e.  vol.  309,  1921,  pp.  423-35. 

Wilson,  Edmund.  "Drinkwat er’ s ’Mary  Stuart.’”  New  Re- 
public, vol.  26,  1921,  p.  152. 

Lie  Id” 

"The  Tragic  Maiy  . ” Academy,  vol.  38,  1890,  pp . 123-24. 


Gordon,  R.  K.  "John  Galt.”  University  of  Toronto  Stud- 
ies, Philological  Series,  no.  5. 

The  Novels  of  John  Galt.”  Blackwood, ’,8.  Edinburgh  Magazine, 
vol.  159,  1896,  pp.  971-82.  " 

1ms*  A satassA 

Moir,  D.  M.  "Sketches  of  the  Poetical  Literature  of  the 
Past  Half-Cent ury . " Edinburgh,  1851. 

Mrs.  Eliza J*%£wqo,d 

Whicher,  George  Brisbie.  "The  Life  and  Romances  of  Mrs. 
Eliza  Haywood. ” Columbia  University  Press,  New  York, 
1915. 

Maurice  Hewlett. 

Bonner,  Milton.  "Maurice  Hewlett.”  John  W.  Luce  and  Com- 
pany, Boston,  1911. 

Bruce,  H.  Addington.  "The  Queen’s  Quair.”  Current  .Lit- 
erature. vol.  37,  1904,  pp.  82-84. 


91 


“Mr.  Hewlett’s  Latest  Story.”  Hat i on.  vol.  79,  1904, 
p . 14 . 

Madame  de  LaPayette, 

Mathews,  Brander.  MA  Best  Seller  of  Two  Hundred  Years 
Ago.”  Bookman,  vol.  39,  1914,  pp.  398-94. 

Wright,  Edward.  ,rThe  Earliest  Modern  Novelist.”  Acad- 
emy. vol.  30,  1906,  p.  91. 

Sftat&a 

Whitmore,  Clara  H.  “'Woman’s  Place  in  English  Piction.” 

G.  P.  Putnam’s  Sons,  New  York,  1910. 

MiAfta. 

Woerner,  Homan.  "Lie  Allteste  Maria  Stuart-Trag<5fdie.  ” 

In  "Germant ische  Abhandlung en.  ” Hermann  Paul,  Strass- 
burg,  1902. 

J ohann  Pr^edrich  .Q^r^st^ojiher  J£on J5cJii  1 lejr 

"Schiller’s  Mary  Stuart.”  Knickerbocker,,  vol.  9,  1837, 
pp.  433-43. 


Sir  Walt  er  .Scott, 

Canning,  Albert  S.  G.  “History  in  Scott’s  Novels.”  T. 
Pisher  Unwin,  London,  1907. 

"The  Waverley  Novels."  Ljtt  ell’s  Ljv  i m.  Aj?er . vol.  205, 
1895,  pp.  513-34. 

"Mr.  Swinburne’s  ’Bothwell.’"  Port nig . \v,  FfiPX qw • vol. 

22,  1874,  pp.  76-88. 

"Mr.  Swinburne’s  ’ Chast  elard.  ’ " Port  ni,ght  \v;  Review, 
vol.  4,  1866,  pp.  533-43. 

"Swinburne’s  ’Mary  Stuart.’”  Rial . vol.  2,  1882,  op.  237- 
38. 


Simcox,  G.  A.  "Mr.  Swinburne’s  Trilogy."  Port  nightly 
Review,  vol.  37,  1882,  pp.  156-79. 

Wrat ialaw,  Theodore.  "Algernon  Charles  Swinburne.”  Green- 
ing, London,  1900. 


92 


CharloAt  e ,Ma  r%  Jfog&g 

"Charlotte  Mary  Yonge."  Lit t ell*  s Living  Age,  vol.  240, 

1904,  pp.  567-81. 

v 

"The  Novels  of  Miss  Yonge."  Edinburgh  Review,  vol.  202, 

1905,  pp.  557-77. 

"Unknown  to  History."  Saturday  Review,  vol.  54,  1884, 
pp.  60-51. 

ias&t^aa  Zo^ei 

Hellwald,  Frederich  von.  "Geschichte  des  Holl^ndischen 
Theaters."  Rotterdam,  1874. 


